HP3000-L Archives

December 1997, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Rudderow, Evan" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Rudderow, Evan
Date:
Fri, 19 Dec 1997 11:14:00 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
Ewart North <[log in to unmask]> asks,

<snip>

>My user is now saying "why can't we do this on a transaction by
>transaction basis?"  I think what he means is to closely link the two
>systems so that the SOP (9k) checks codes which exist in Image on the
3k
>so that mis-postings can be eliminated earlier in the processing cycle.
>
>My questions-
>Is this scenario possible?  If so what do I need on each machine to
>accomplish this?
>What are the consequences (if any) for response on either or both
>machines?

Definitely possible.  The way we've done it is by using Berkeley sockets
to pass a message from the HP9K to a listener process on the HP3K; the
HP3K process executes some application code, performs all of the
TurboIMAGE database access and sends a message back to the HP9K with the
completion status.

Response time is great -- especially because all of the database access
are local to the HP3000 (i.e.; they don't flow across the network).

Contact me offline if you want more details.

 -- Evan

ATOM RSS1 RSS2