| Author |
Message
|
| mqjeff |
 Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| I use a Keurig kept constantly on standby. |
That's not coffee.
I'll bring you a big box of Lipton instant to go with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| Vitor wrote: |
| I use a Keurig kept constantly on standby. |
That's not coffee. |
I never said I use retail brand K-cups.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| whatever's in those cups has been roasted more than a year ago. It's not coffee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| whatever's in those cups has been roasted more than a year ago. It's not coffee. |
It's what I used to put in filters
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rekarm01 |
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 1415
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| You need to use RFC 1149 to transport coffee. |
Wouldn't RFC 2324 be more suitable for this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| chirasukham |
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 19
|
| I'm past the "Duplicate XML name for global elements 'MedicalProgram'" issue now, but still can't get rid of the "message set cannot contain two global elements ..." error message. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| chirasukham wrote: |
| I'm past the "Duplicate XML name for global elements 'MedicalProgram'" issue now, but still can't get rid of the "message set cannot contain two global elements ..." error message. |
Ah - the point returns! Welcome back!
To echo the words of the illustrious @kimbert earlier, why are you adding this XSD to a message set (because XMLNSC doens't need it) and why not create a new message set?
I can theorise that the existing message dates from a pre-XMLNSC version of WMB where they were needed. This is no longer the case.
Also, if the error message says these are duplicates, and you're adding to an existing message set, how do you know there isn't another global element? Does the set describe 2 distinct messages? If yes, how do you know?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| chirasukham |
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 19
|
Well, I got past the error.
 
The error is exactly what the message says...
There has got to be some clash in the naming.
I'm not sure how or why the name is clashing with some existing name in the message set (since the is a new addition to the message set).
(Search for the Type name does not reveal any existing duplication).
But, because I have to deliver the application tomorrow, I just renamed the
Types in the Toolkit after importing the XSD, and its working now.
However, the educational opportunity remains.
( I think the midnight oil and melted candle wax added to the Keurig coffee helped somewhat).
Thanks to all for the caring and trying to help out.
I really appreciate what you all are doing to help us newbies. Hopefully someday I will be able to pay it forward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
| Quote: |
| why are you adding this XSD to a message set (because XMLNSC doens't need it) |
Or, more accurately:
| Quote: |
| why are you adding this XML physical format to a message set (because XMLNSC doens't need it) |
Echoes can be indistinct, I guess 
In any case, the OP appears to have licked the problem now.
_________________
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way you're a mile away, and you have their shoes too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| chirasukham |
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 19
|
| Quote: |
| I can theorise that the existing message dates from a pre-XMLNSC version of WMB where they were needed. |
You are correct, sir!!.
I see evidence of MQSI 2.1 inside the repositories, when it was ported up to a higher version.
| Quote: |
| Also, if the error message says these are duplicates, and you're adding to an existing message set, how do you know there isn't another global element? Does the set describe 2 distinct messages? If yes, how do you know? |
I tried doing a File Search by the name of the duplicate object, and could not find a dupe. However, now that I have it working after renaming, I will go back and search by the old name, and see what turns up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| rekarm01 wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| You need to use RFC 1149 to transport coffee. |
Wouldn't RFC 2324 be more suitable for this? |
No, that turns the coffee pot off and on. It doesn't move the coffee from the coffee pot to my current location. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rekarm01 |
| Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 1415
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| rekarm01 wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| You need to use RFC 1149 to transport coffee. |
Wouldn't RFC 2324 be more suitable for this? |
No, that turns the coffee pot off and on. It doesn't move the coffee from the coffee pot to my current location. |
Admittedly, we're still using sneakernet for this, so I'll have to defer to mqjeff's expertise ...
For RFC 1149, what type of carrier provides an adequate MTU, and how well does such a carrier work for indoor Local Area Networks?
For RFC 2324, what then is the purpose of the HTCPCP GET method?
[Edit: Never mind -- one is an IP-layer protocol, and the other is a TCP-layer protocol, so it's not really an either-or question ... ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
What you guys need is a touch of James May and his 'Man Lab'. Make the Train set move the coffee from the pot to the consumer.
Or perhaps you need some 'JCB' backhoe protocols.
  
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| rekarm01 wrote: |
| .For RFC 1149, what type of carrier provides an adequate MTU, and how well does such a carrier work for indoor Local Area Networks? |
I'm considering a fleet of bluetooth enabled micro-helicopters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
