Re: BillMax questions -- name conflict never allowed... or so ithought

[Jeff LaCoursiere <jeff@jeff.net>]

The service definitions must also have overlapping resources attached to
enforce the name conflict resolution.  If you don't have any resources
defined, or if the definition does not have any resources attached, name
conflicts are not enforced.

j

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Robert Gorrell wrote:

> I'm with an ISP running Billmax version 1.5.4 (Redhat platform)
>  
> Today I came across a somewhat alarming problem. Two different accounts
> (both of which in the open state) were seemingly allowed to posses
> identical service names. Each account had a service of a differing type
> (but, as said, same service name). I took a look at our service
> definitions for each of the two services types in question and indeed
> both have Name Conflict set to "Never Ok".
>  
> I also went to verify with a few of our test accounts and Billmax
> behaved as expected. I attempted to add a new service of the same name
> as an already existing one to a test account. Billmax did indeed not
> allow me to do this. But the question still stands, how did these two
> accounts end up with services of identical names if name conflict is set
> to never ok?
>  
> Thanks for your help
> Robert Gorrell
> Appalachian Technologies
>  
>  
>  
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the "BillMax Questions" mailing list, please
send a message to "majordomo@billmax.com" with "unsubscribe questions"
in the message body. The message must be sent from the exact email
address on the list.