| Author |
Message
|
| wmqiguy |
 Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 09 Oct 2002
Posts: 145
Location: Florida
|
I wish. I can't seem to locate it now, but I read that it is only valid with field references. Unfortunately, I only read this after spending hours trying to get it to work.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mgk |
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1642
|
Hi,
wmqiguy is correct. The { ... } syntax can only be used for a single element in a Field Reference, not in a Select List. However, for this scenario, I would always recomend the PASSTHRU statement instead of EVAL. It allows dynamic schema names to be used, but has a MUCH lower overhead than EVAL.
Regards,
_________________
MGK
The postings I make on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kirani |
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 05 Sep 2001
Posts: 3779
Location: Torrance, CA, USA
|
Even with References it does not recognize DOT as fieldLevel seperator.
_________________
Kiran
IBM Cert. Solution Designer & System Administrator - WBIMB V5
IBM Cert. Solutions Expert - WMQI
IBM Cert. Specialist - WMQI, MQSeries
IBM Cert. Developer - MQSeries
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kirani |
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 05 Sep 2001
Posts: 3779
Location: Torrance, CA, USA
|
Currently, you cannot connect to two different DSN within same node. I'd like to see that changed in Version 6.0
_________________
Kiran
IBM Cert. Solution Designer & System Administrator - WBIMB V5
IBM Cert. Solutions Expert - WMQI
IBM Cert. Specialist - WMQI, MQSeries
IBM Cert. Developer - MQSeries
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PGoodhart |
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 278
Location: Harrisburg PA
|
PGoodhart wrote:
5. Eliminate the Configuration Manager altogether. Instead of Toolkit-Configuration Manager-Broker, why not Toolkit-Broker. It's just an extra historical artifact at this point.
"I'm going to disagree.
Configuration Manager plays the same role in a WBIMB environment that the Deployment Manager plays in a WAS environment.
It allows you to centralize network traffic, and centralize SECURITY. And enforce security, too. These are good things."
HUH? At least give me a Unix version of the darn thing so I can put it on the same physical machine and ELMINATE the network traffic.
As far as adding Security, that's a bad joke. Security should be properly enforced in the product and integrate with your security manager of choice. An extra product never added any security, just more points of possible invasion.
_________________
Patrick Goodhart
MQ Admin/Web Developer/Consultant
WebSphere Application Server Admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
I'd much rather have my production boxes accept network connections from a single configuration manager, than have them have to accept network connections from *every* developer workstation.
As for security... my point is this. If I have several brokers installed on several machines and the broker is directly responsible for security policy management, then I either have to configure the local security on each broker (which is bad), or I have to replicate the configuration that controls the connection to my security manager of choice to each broker (which is at best an opportunity for mistakes). I'd much rather configure that (likely troublesome) connection in one place, and maintain it in one place.
But, yes, I agree - the configuration manager should be made multi-platform and allow for generic connection to an LDAP of choice. I expect that will happen.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
Kirani, can you make a locked post that moderators add bulleted items to from this discussion thread, and make a link from that locked post to this discussio thread. That way we have a nice clean list to point IBM to of what we want / need in this product.
Another wish: When there are updates that can be downloaded for the ToolKit, can we get automated emails. Would be nice to know as soon as a new update is available.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kirani |
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 05 Sep 2001
Posts: 3779
Location: Torrance, CA, USA
|
Peter, I will make a "sticky post" summarizing these points. Also, I will post the link to that "sticky post" in this thread.
_________________
Kiran
IBM Cert. Solution Designer & System Administrator - WBIMB V5
IBM Cert. Solutions Expert - WMQI
IBM Cert. Specialist - WMQI, MQSeries
IBM Cert. Developer - MQSeries
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Tibor |
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 20 May 2001
Posts: 1033
Location: Hungary
|
I have just a simple wish: dynamic naming for trace files, e.g. {Environment.TraceRoot}/mytrace.
Tibor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ernest-ter.kuile |
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:02 pm Post subject: Easy access to some global info like broker name. |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 13 May 2002
Posts: 49
Location: KLM Holland
|
Some Global ESQL variables that always contain the current name of the flow, name of execution group and containing broker name. Definitly very usefull for debugging, and to prevent a proliferation of trace files.
this can't be hard to implement.
While we are here, in esql, global variables that are really global, and so are reachable from inside functions and procedure. I hate to have to pass the InputRoot, Environment, LocalEnvironment and OutputRoot as a parameter all the time.
note we still use 2.1 so maybe 5.x resolved these.
Ernest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kirani |
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 05 Sep 2001
Posts: 3779
Location: Torrance, CA, USA
|
| Tibor wrote: |
I have just a simple wish: dynamic naming for trace files, e.g. {Environment.TraceRoot}/mytrace.
Tibor |
And turn on the Trace (using Trace nodes in message flow) dynamically.
_________________
Kiran
IBM Cert. Solution Designer & System Administrator - WBIMB V5
IBM Cert. Solutions Expert - WMQI
IBM Cert. Specialist - WMQI, MQSeries
IBM Cert. Developer - MQSeries
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| psn |
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 30 Oct 2002
Posts: 193
Location: France
|
I think that the deployment could be better : it could be good that you can set the BAR File parameters in the command line. and that you can define a variable in the ESQL that you can change in the BAR file . For example for DB Schema Name in a PASSTHRU function how change from Developpement to the Produstion...
PSN |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kirani |
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 05 Sep 2001
Posts: 3779
Location: Torrance, CA, USA
|
From this post,
Add support for ORDER BY, UNIQUE, and GROUP BY clause in ESQL.
_________________
Kiran
IBM Cert. Solution Designer & System Administrator - WBIMB V5
IBM Cert. Solutions Expert - WMQI
IBM Cert. Specialist - WMQI, MQSeries
IBM Cert. Developer - MQSeries
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
