| Author |
Message
|
| Jenney |
 Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: Better ESQL |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 83
Location: Melbourne
|
HI All,
I have a flow TDS to XML conversion with about 400 fields, is there a better way to convert the fields than esql typing one field by field. I tired mapping node and it gives me error for the data format TDS1 cannot be converted to XML1.
Just looking for some fresh ideas.
Thanks
Jen |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
At some point, you have to end up mapping fields individually.
The Mapping editor is designed to make this very easy, and it will do smart things for you. So you should probably spend some more time trying to figure out why it isn't working.
But if the data is in the same message definition, just a different physical format... then you can use an RCD to change the MRM parser used.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Another alternative is the ESQL select statement, depending on how close the formats are.
But if they're very close the mapping node shouldn't be having trouble
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jenney |
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 83
Location: Melbourne
|
Data is in different message defination, but same format i.e. date is same format, string and so.
Sure i'll try that.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Are the fields named similarly? Is the logical structure of the two messages close?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jenney |
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 83
Location: Melbourne
|
| Mostly they are similar, but we can make them similar, structures are little different as XML message has extra fields than TDS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
If the logical structure is similar, and the names are similar, you can write some ESQL to walk the input message by reference, and build the output message - possibly using stuff to transform the FIELDNAME of the input reference into the right thing for the NAME of the output reference.
But the mapping node is going to be clearer, easier to maintain, and easier to use.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jenney |
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 83
Location: Melbourne
|
| thanks, this really helped, i'll try that |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
