| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| AMI C++ linkage problem: unresolved symbol AmMessage ctor |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| royr |
 Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:14 am Post subject: AMI C++ linkage problem: unresolved symbol AmMessage ctor |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 30 Jun 2001
Posts: 65
Location: Israel
|
Hi,
The following tiny C++ program compiles but does not link:
| Code: |
#include <amtcpp.hpp>
class MyMessage : AmMessage {
MyMessage(AmSession& session,char * name);
};
MyMessage::MyMessage(AmSession& session,char * name) : AmMessage(session,name) {}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
return 0;
};
|
I'm getting the following error message from the compiler:
| Quote: |
| error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "protected: __thiscall AmMessage::AmMessage(class AmSession &,char *)" (??0AmMessage@@IAE@AAVAmSession@@PAD@Z) |
The missing symbol is AmMessage's constructor, which is defined in amtcpp.hpp as follows:
| Code: |
class AmMessage : public AmObject
{
...
protected:
AmMessage(AmSession& session,char * name);
~AmMessage();
...
};
|
The constructor is missing, however, from the amtcpp.lib file.
Needless to say my other AMI C++ programs compile and link with no problems. I'm using MQ 5.3 client, CSD04, AMI 1.2.3 (latest MA0F), MS Visual Studio 6 on Windows 2000.
Anyone bumped into this problem or has any idea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| JasonE |
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 03 Nov 2003
Posts: 1220
Location: Hursley
|
Hello, amtcpp.lib is built with an explicit def file and that entrypoint is not in there, ie effectively making it internal only. (Effectively we dont export the constructor for the AmMessage)
If you cannot work around this problem, your only option would be to contact service and see if it can be fixed (- esp. if this was regresed between releases of AMI). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| royr |
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 30 Jun 2001
Posts: 65
Location: Israel
|
Thanks JasonE. I'll contact service and see how it goes.
BTW, since you're obviously an insider, can you comment (unoffically of course) on the status of AMI at Hursley? There have been some doubts expressed here about the commitment of IBM to this API and its expected lifetime beyond end 2005 (the supportpac end of service date). It hasn't been included in the product itself as was done with the .net API, and no new features were added in the last year or so.
As we're about to start deploying AMI apps on quite a large scale in my company, I'd really like to know if we should depend on it on the long run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JasonE |
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 03 Nov 2003
Posts: 1220
Location: Hursley
|
Ok, as I said - PM me your pmr no and I'll watch it
As to the other comment, its really not possible for me to answer that question, much as I would like to (I believe something was said at the last tech conf but since I wasnt there I cant tell you what it was). I cant afford anything said externally to be 'from IBM' and hence I can never comment directly on things which might be happening in the future unless they have already been announced (and, to be honest, things also change up until that point) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
I seem to recall an official announcement that AMI was going away at the Transaction & Messaging Conference in February.
If you look for the proceedings from that on the IBM website, you should be able to find something.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bower5932 |
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Aug 2001
Posts: 3023
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
|
What I remember being said (by Ian Simpson), was a question regarding who was using AMI. There were a couple of hands that went up. He then said that the delivery mechanism for the AMI on zOS would be via SupportPac rather than being shipped with the product. He said that this was to make its delivery be in line with the rest of the products.
I don't believe you'll find anything in the conference notes since I believe the session where this was said was a futures Q&A and not a 'presented' presentation.
However, as soon as the session was over, everybody that I heard talking about the comment, took it to mean that he was saying the AMI was going away. He did not say this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
