Increase SECUSR from 10 Characters to 11 (or 12)

Hi Everyone,

I was wondering if anyone has made any changes to the SECUSR field for adding the system user from the default 10 characters to another value. We have a naming convention for our network and JDE users. It used to be 6 characters and now it has changed to 7. What we decided years ago was to create the system users for each OneWorld user on the SQL side to have a prefix of JDE_ then the same 6 character OneWorld user ID. This made for easier traceability on the SQL server. Since that decision to have the prefix we have changed our naming convention to 7 characters. So now when we create the system user we either have to change the prefix or change the 10 character restriction for the SECUSR field. Has anyone done this? I opened a call with Oracle and they told me that it works as designed and if we wanted it changed we would have to put in a request to Development.

Maybe we should just change the naming convention but I'm just wondering if we could change the restriction.

Has anyone done this?

Kevin
ERP8 SQL 2000 SP3

Kevin,

one thing you should NEVER do is change a standard DD item's size or data type.
If you want your system to stop running . . .

I think you already know the answer, but here's my take:

1. Wait the rest of your life trying to get Oracle to change the length of this field. The position of Development is generally "if it doesn't make money, we're not interested" (which sounds like "works as designed"). There is no money to be made increasing the length of this field.

2. Attempt to change the field length yourself, hoping you're able to test every application and UBE, and hoping that the system still works. Username is extremely pervasive in JDE.

3. Change your naming convention.

I estimate the odds of accomplishing (1) or (2) about the same as getting Quebec to adopt Spanish as the official language.

Thanks Larry and Bill.

I totally agree with both of you. I don't want to change the SECUSR field but I just wanted to throw it out there to see if it was a viable option. I'm just ticked that the naming convention was changed without taking something like this into consideration. It was changed out of laziness and became standard.

Thanks for your time guys.

Regards,
Kevin
ERP8 SP23_F1
SQL 2000 SP3