Feature Request

tooo

Is there any plans to add in a time estimate as to how long it'll take to either create a new DB or an estimate on how long it'll take to restore a backup??

kine

Because NAV 6.0 (new client) will run on the MS SQL server, I assume that everybody will use SQL backup/restore and thus there will be no plant to add such a thing into NAV functionality...

Waldo

As the new client isn't that thick any more, I guess there won't be a backup/restore functionality in it. Indeed, serverside backups are more interesting.

Furthermore, the DEV environment will still be in the classic client, which has the backup/restore functionality as we know. I doubt very much if there is going to be a focus on changing something about this.

NavStudent

They have to provide us a company specify backup procedure once the classic client discontinued.

And another developer environment would be helpfull as well. On second thought they don't need to provide that. We can all program on sql directly.

Waldo

NavStudent wrote:

They have to provide us a company specify backup procedure once the classic client discontinued.

And another developer environment would be helpfull as well. On second thought they don't need to provide that. We can all program on sql directly.

Don't know what you mean with your second statement ... but the company specific backup is really something that is useful.

Marije_Brummel

NavStudent wrote:

They have to provide us a company specify backup procedure once the classic client discontinued.

In 6.0 you will do that using the old client in which you also will develop.

For the future I have specificaly asked them to somehow keep this function since for ERP it is very important.

Waldo

Mark Brummel wrote:

For the future I have specificaly asked them to somehow keep this function since for ERP it is very important.

I remember talking about this a number of times with the product team, so I guess they know how important it is to keep the feature ... .

Michael_Nielsen_[MSFT]

Yes we know:)

We will add a number of administration features in future version of the rolebased client.

Beyond backup/restore what is the most important things you would want to do from the client from an administration perspective?

Michael

Waldo

Well,

from the top of my head:
- User Admin
- Some kind of Client Monitor (I don't know what to expect though in 3-tier architecture, but some problems are client-related...)
- Import/Export of Objects (as sometimes, this is done by the end-user)
- Zoom
- Running objects like dataport, reports from some kind of "object explorer" (for when it's not in the menu).

kine

Waldo wrote:

Well,

from the top of my head:
- User Admin
- Some kind of Client Monitor (I don't know what to expect though in 3-tier architecture, but some problems are client-related...)
- Import/Export of Objects (as sometimes, this is done by the end-user)
- Zoom
- Running objects like dataport, reports from some kind of "object explorer" (for when it's not in the menu).

=> Shortly - what you can do now in the C/Side client... ;-)

My list:
1) Check of the service-tier "health" - some customers has no IT person and it means that there is no person which is able to check if all is OK on the IIS etc.
2) "Session" list - who is connected, date and time of loggin, Idle time etc. if possible. - used e.g. for auditing the session usage - of course I do not know how the new client will be licensed (named users, concurent users etc.).
3) Possibility to send some info to other users (e.g. broadcasting "please, disconnect, maintenance in progress..." :-)) (low priority request...)
4) License upload
5) may be some base stats about performance

Waldo

Just thinking of something extra:
Network stats: to see if network performance is healthy.

NavStudent

-One way separate back per company be implemented is if each company would be a separate database. The objects would be also a separate database. This would make backing up a company very easy on sql side. There are a lot of companies that have 50-100 companies in a database, and restoring a company is very painful.
-Be able to run Business Logic between Companies. Right now we only have ChangeCompany Function.
-Strings longer than 1024 characters.
-Debugger, or at least a way to see where the code errored out, and a call-stack.
-run actual sql reports. User doesn’t have to open IE. The users won’t know the difference.
-Tell Difference between production test databases.
-provide basic code on how to consume a web service. In 6.0 it mentions that we create very easily web services, it will help a lot of people if there were code on how to consume by Navision a web service. Just like you have now SMTP Codeunit.
- A Scheduler instead of NAS that would run job scheduler, and modify most large processing task to be run unattended through this new scheduler. (e.g. MRP, adjust cost). It could consume webservices or whatever, but there has to be a default solution.
-Be able to disconnect other users from the service tier.
-Save as PDF through code.
-Some process to be able to increase the length of fields seamlessly. Just like right now when you rename an item no, it goes throughout the system and updates the fields based on relationship; we should have similar property on variables and fields.

Michael_Nielsen_[MSFT]

I belive that you got a bit of topic NavStudent:)

Longtem we are working on a managed language experience which would solve some of your issues (debugger, ...).

The string longer than 1024 issues is tied to the classic database and will not go away anytime soon (We also love the classic db)

NAS will be still required for some scenarioes in 6.0 - but our plan in the add these capabilities to the new service tier post 6.0

Some of the admin task can be solved by:

1) Hosting the object explorer in the new client
2) Be able to use other ODBC datasources in the client
3) Adding custom controls to client to be able to view different perf measures and logs
4) Integrate with products like Centro http://www.microsoft.com/midsizebusines ... ement.mspx

I would prefer to have an open framework where you are not limited to what we provide out of the box

ara3n

While we are offtopic, here is another blog that is asking similar requests.

http://dynamicsuser.net/blogs/stryk/arc ... -list.aspx

bbrown

"Michael wrote:

"]Yes we know:)

We will add a number of administration features in future version of the rolebased client.

Beyond backup/restore what is the most important things you would want to do from the client from an administration perspective?

Michael

The ability to specify the filegroup for each company. This would be useful from a resource tuning standpoint. Smaller companies could be grouped together and larger companies could be placed in their own filegroups and placed on their own disk systems.

Also from a backup standpoint each filegroup could be backed up by itself.

ara3n

One more feature would be using OR statement

Table.setrange(Field1,'value1') OR
Table.setrange(Field1,'value1') ;

It's from this thread.

http://www.mibuso.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=105469

kine

1) Hosting the object explorer in the new client
2) Be able to use other ODBC datasources in the client
3) Adding custom controls to client to be able to view different perf measures and logs
4) Integrate with products like Centro http://www.microsoft.com/midsizebusines ... ement.mspx

1 and 3 will be super - it will be easy way how to "go around" of some limits in client and still have the client... :-)

Waldo

ara3n wrote:

While we are offtopic, here is another blog that is asking similar requests.

http://dynamicsuser.net/blogs/stryk/arc ... -list.aspx

Well,
I'll take the opportunity as well. My biggest wishes are:
- Extended Datatypes(like NavStudent also alread mentioned)
- Versioning
- Automated Documentation

Waldo

kine wrote:

1) Hosting the object explorer in the new client
2) Be able to use other ODBC datasources in the client
3) Adding custom controls to client to be able to view different perf measures and logs
4) Integrate with products like Centro http://www.microsoft.com/midsizebusines ... ement.mspx

1 and 3 will be super - it will be easy way how to "go around" of some limits in client and still have the client... :-)

Yes indeed. (2 as well).
But we like the fact that many things are already out-of-the-box (keep it simple...). I hope MS will use these possibillities to build straight forward solutions that are useful to everyone. Else, everyone will build their own ... and you get a 1000 solutions for every small problem ... .

Alex_Chow

Waldo wrote:

- Automated Documentation

Yes, this will indeed eliminate a lot of frustration for NSCs and Customers on upgrades.

Michael_Nielsen_[MSFT]

The benefit of an open framework is that tools ISV's like Impuls in Germany will be able to create built-in tools and sell their solution to app ISV's and implemenation partners.

But ofcause we will deliver an out of the box solution to meet basic demands.

ssingla

Workflow Authorization in Indian Customization does not work as smooth as anybody would love to use. Why MS does not include it in the standard version :?:
Authorization anyhow seems to be applicable to most of the industry.

Sorcerer

what about navwish@microsoft.com (like sqlwish@microsoft.com)?

NavStudent

The problem with ISV's is that they build their solution for that country. And you can't license it in another country, unless they make their solution Global modification and have to move their object in a different range. And it takes these ISV 6 months to release an update for a new version. This makes upgrading impossible. Also these ISV’s have shitty support.

Don't hold your breath for ISV. Make the product better.

Waldo

NavStudent wrote:

The problem with ISV's is that they build their solution for that country. And you can't license it in another country, unless they make their solution Global modification and have to move their object in a different range. And it takes these ISV 6 months to release an update for a new version. This makes upgrading impossible. Also these ISV’s have shitty support.

Don't hold your breath for ISV. Make the product better.

From an ISV point of view: it is not easy to support a product for multiple countries, plus, it's not easy for an ISV to go international with a product (marketing, partnering, ...).

Waldo

ssingla wrote:

Why MS does not include it in the standard version :?:

Indeed!
I got a similar question about the "Cost Accounting". This is something that has been released in 11 localisations - not all (not Belgium ). I can't understand why, to be honest .

NavStudent

Waldo wrote:

NavStudent wrote:

The problem with ISV's is that they build their solution for that country. And you can't license it in another country, unless they make their solution Global modification and have to move their object in a different range. And it takes these ISV 6 months to release an update for a new version. This makes upgrading impossible. Also these ISV’s have shitty support.

Don't hold your breath for ISV. Make the product better.

From an ISV point of view: it is not easy to support a product for multiple countries, plus, it's not easy for an ISV to go international with a product (marketing, partnering, ...).

I don't blame you, I understand how much effort goes into the addon and maintance for the addon plus localization and documentation, and training.

I just don't want MS to answer every question with somebody out there having a vertical solution for it.
I don't want MS to write minimum, sometimes unworkable solution and then expect ISV to write an addon or vertical.
MS should build solid foundation that is workable.

I had to implement 6 months ago a solution that the client had bought 4 addons, it was a total mess. Non of the addons worked with each other.
There were no documentation on how to use the 4 addons. Each addon had 1 to 2 hundred objects. And client is using 10 % of each Vertical.
Forget about upgradding them.

The addons are lanham Eship, which comes allready with EDI. Which is f# up. Why don't they split the two products. It's costly for them.
To Increase objects, LVMH addon. Advansed forecasting, Lanham ADCS.

What is worse, one of the european addon had called all it's field xxxyyy1
xxxxyyy2, and they had codeunits that would return the caption based on your license, If your license only had part of the granules, you would see blank blank blank fields when you zoomed or ran the table. you couldn't do shit with codeunits.
They all were adding so many fields to the sales header, that we ran out of fields. We had to pick and choose fields. I would never implement that kind of solution.
Vertical are not the answer to everything.
How can MS let these kind of addon be sold?

DenSter

NavStudent wrote:

The problem with ISV's is that they build their solution for that country.

And that is a problem how? If I have a few customers here in my area, and they have something in common that I can resell to other companies in my area, why should I have to think about making that ready for all the other localizations?

NavStudent wrote:

MS should build solid foundation that is workable.

Are you even working with NAV?

NavStudent wrote:

I had to implement 6 months ago a solution that the client had bought 4 addons, it was a total mess. Non of the addons worked with each other.

Why would any ISV have to make addon A work with B, and C, and D, and E, and......?

If you sell 4 addons to the same customer, it is YOU that will need to make them work together.

If you have a complaint about an ISV's product, take it up with the ISV, and stop blaming Microsoft. You can't put any responsibility for after market products on the manufacturer of the base product.

NavStudent

DenSter wrote:

And that is a problem how? If I have a few customers here in my area, and they have something in common that I can resell to other companies in my area, why should I have to think about making that ready for all the other localizations?

Because MS is pushing NSC to become vertical and have a solution.
MS doesn't want to built a complete solution. They build the minimum or less.

DenSter wrote:

Are you even working with NAV?

Yes, and I will give you an example. ADCS doesn't work with serial or lot no. The RFID objects they recently released. Commerce portal had an unworkable shopping card. Nothing worked in that product.

DenSter wrote:

Why would any ISV have to make addon A work with B, and C, and D, and E, and......?

If you sell 4 addons to the same customer, it is YOU that will need to make them work together.

If you have a complaint about an ISV's product, take it up with the ISV, and stop blaming Microsoft. You can't put any responsibility for after market products on the manufacturer of the base product.

Again I was giving examples for MS idea that of verticalization, and that it's not the answer to everything. They should still build solid solution and improve all areas of Navision.
This is how GP works and they want Navision to head the same way and it's not the answer.

bbrown

NavStudent wrote:

DenSter wrote:

And that is a problem how? If I have a few customers here in my area, and they have something in common that I can resell to other companies in my area, why should I have to think about making that ready for all the other localizations?

Because MS is pushing NSC to become vertical and have a solution.
MS doesn't want to built a complete solution. They build the minimum or less.

And this approach differs from other mid to upper level accounting system, how?

p.willemse6

Navstudent, if you have to use 4 different add-ons, you don't have a vertical, you have a set of add-ons which (should) fit some needs of a customer.

Having a vertical means you have chosen a (niche)market, and developed or let some develop a complete solution for this market.

The last 6 projects I sold, were all without any customizations and were rolled out in 15 days a piece. These were companies with average of 100 FTE, not small businesss.

Many companies for example "specialize" in trade organisations. That is not a vertical. Within trade, there are many segments with many specific demands.