Use of "}" in user defined cubes to hide in standard display

[jed]

I'm considering prefixing a number of my system type cubes (assumptions, parameters etc) with "}" so that they are only displayed when "Display Control Objects" is turned on.
There's no reason to use security to prevent the display of these cubes to users but it would be nice to have them not displayed by default as some users tend to freak out when presented with too many cubes.

I realise that TM1 prevents me from using symbols in a cube name when creating cube in perspectives but I can rename the cube in the data directory (haven't tested whether it lets me use symbols in cube names when creating in TI).

My question is....has anyone done this before and are there any adverse consequences of doing this??

[Alan Kirk]

I'm considering prefixing a number of my system type cubes (assumptions, parameters etc) with "}" so that they are only displayed when "Display Control Objects" is turned on.
There's no reason to use security to prevent the display of these cubes to users but it would be nice to have them not displayed by default as some users tend to freak out when presented with too many cubes.

True... but if I had the feature available (it came in with 8.3) I'd probably be inclined to start training users to use Applications rather than the full list. It's an option to consider anyway.

I realise that TM1 prevents me from using symbols in a cube name when creating cube in perspectives

You can't delete them via the GUI either. (You can with TI.)

but I can rename the cube in the data directory

It'll probably work but I wouldn't recommend it. Better to create them through the GUI or TI to make sure that they're correctly registered with the server and the relevant system cubes.

(haven't tested whether it lets me use symbols in cube names when creating in TI).

It will; that was the method that I used in the code that I wrote for Jim in the Tracking TM1 Usage thread.

My question is....has anyone done this before and are there any adverse consequences of doing this??

Weeelll... I did it with the example in the thread above. However that was a system monitoring cube, and even then I put a comment in mentioning that users of the code might want to consider changing the name. I've also seen some third party tools which create cubes for their own use that start with a } character. Again, though, these were system-related; they didn't store data. I haven't done it with actual data cubes. I have no doubt that it'll work, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it as a good practice most of the time. There's always a remote possibility that a future release of TM1 will either appropriate one of the names that you use for its own use, or lock down the system cubes more tightly.

You'll be able to do it (at least on any current version), but I wouldn't. It's up to you, though...

[Alan Kirk]

You'll be able to do it (at least on any current version), but I wouldn't. It's up to you, though...

Oh, one other option to consider; start all of your "support" cube names (the ones that users don't need to browse) with a "z". They'll still appear in the complete cubes list, but at least they'll be at the bottom, out of the way. And out of sight is out of mind...

[jed]

Interesting thoughts..I'm still undecided. My concerns would also be around Cognos changing something with system cubes in the future....
maybe I'll just prefix my system type cubes with a z to keep them all at the end of the list.

[lotsaram]

Is there any requirement for users to be able to read or writ to your system cubes?

If users don't have at least read access to the cubes they won't be able to see them, simple as that.

[jed]

Is there any requirement for users to be able to read or writ to your system cubes?

If users don't have at least read access to the cubes they won't be able to see them, simple as that.

errr well that's obvious....I think you're missing the point here.

[Paul Segal]

I've been using } prefixed cubes for a long time, and not come across any problems related to doing so. Not that, as Alan says, this is necessarily good practice, but it can be done.

Best

Paul

[LoadzaGrunt]

My question is....has anyone done this before and are there any adverse consequences of doing this??

Yes - for cubes, dimensions, subsets and processes.

I've not come across any problems. As you suggest, keeping to a naming convention that clearly separates your objects from TM1's standard control objects is a good idea.

[Martin Ryan]

Is there any requirement for users to be able to read or writ to your system cubes?

If users don't have at least read access to the cubes they won't be able to see them, simple as that.

errr well that's obvious....I think you're missing the point here.

I'm missing the point too. Why is security not an option? Seems like the tidiest way to me.

I've tried using } prefixes before and found them annoying for two reasons, 1) as mentioned above, you can't delete them in the front end and 2) also if you want to work with them you have to turn on all the control objects, which can be a pain in the proverbial.

I tend to use "System_" or "z" prefixes.

Cheers,
Martin