[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference azur::mcc

Title:	DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT.
Notice:	Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187
Moderator:	TAEC::BEROUD

Created:	Mon Aug 21 1989
Last Modified:	Wed Jun 04 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	6497
Total number of notes:	27359

6353.0. "mcc_event_get versus mcc_call_access,verb=GETEVENT ?" by KETJE::PACCO (Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae) Fri Jul 28 1995 20:23

    The last of the week ...
    
    If as MM i have to process events which are made available by another
    AM.
    
    1). Do directly a mcc_event_get ?
    2). Do a mcc_call_access with verb=GETEVENT ?
    
    Is 2) the architecturally preferred way ?
    
    Is there a fundamental difference between the 2 methods, specially
    taking care of distribution (TeMIP V3.0).  Am I right to say that
    if I do a mcc_event_get, I ONLY receive events coming from the
    LOCAL event manager, and therefore the event which have been
    'entered' into DECmcc by a LOCAL sink.
    
    Using a mcc_call_access I could implicitely benefit of the TeMIP
    distribution aspects?
    
    Or do I have to take knowledge of all the TeMIP directors and issue a
    mcc_call_access, verb=GETEVENT to the same entity on ALL directors,
    assuming I do a getevent for a wildcarded global entity ?
    
    	Kind regards,
    	Dominique.

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
6353.1	mcc_call only ...	TAEC::LAPLACE	Olivier Laplace @VBE DTN : 828-5202	`Mon Jul 31 1995 11:14`	58
	Hi Dominique, here are some answers. >> The last of the week ... My first one ... >> If as MM i have to process events which are made available by another >> AM. >> >> 1). Do directly a mcc_event_get ? >> 2). Do a mcc_call_access with verb=GETEVENT ? >> >> Is 2) the architecturally preferred way ? More than that. Only 2) is the way. You cannot rely on the mcc_event_get as this one is purely internal to the MM (You do not know the format, it may changes ...). So you must do 2). >> Is there a fundamental difference between the 2 methods, specially >> taking care of distribution (TeMIP V3.0). Am I right to say that >> if I do a mcc_event_get, I ONLY receive events coming from the >> LOCAL event manager, and therefore the event which have been >> 'entered' into DECmcc by a LOCAL sink. Yes you are rigth. But anyway, knowing the previous ... :-) >> Using a mcc_call_access I could implicitely benefit of the TeMIP >> distribution aspects? >> >> Or do I have to take knowledge of all the TeMIP directors and issue a >> mcc_call_access, verb=GETEVENT to the same entity on ALL directors, >> assuming I do a getevent for a wildcarded global entity ? Yes and No. Yes the mcc_call_access will take care of the Distribution in a transparent way for you. No, it won't do everything. Especially in your case, if you use wildcarded global entity : the call will be dispatch locally. We need an instancied global entity to distribute any mcc_call ! Taking the knowledge of all the Directors and issue a mcc_call on those system will not be an easy thing to do ... You can may be use the Notification Roll-Up, feature of TeMIP Framework V3.0, which do take care of the Directors for you. >> Kind regards, >> Dominique. Regards, Olivier
6353.2	mcc_call_function would be ideal	TAEC::FLAUW	Marc Flauw, TeMIP Technical Office, VBO	`Wed Aug 16 1995 15:48`	11
	Dominique, If the mcc_call_function entry point is not used the MM you are coding, the ideal would be to make an mcc_call_function instead of an mcc_call_access. However, if it is wildcarded, it will always be dispatched locally, call function or access. Best regards, Marc.