| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| [SOLVED] Datastructure-XML interface version concept HOW-TO? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Liquid |
 Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 7:59 am Post subject: [SOLVED] Datastructure-XML interface version concept HOW-TO? |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 52
Location: Hungary, Europe
|
Hello!
We ran into a conteptual problem about datastructures. I'll try to simplify and clearly explan the situation. Pls. help. 
Problem:
----------
- We've a process template A_PTEMP with many activities.
- In A_PTEMP, there is a syncron UPES activity, which input datastructure is UPES_IN_DS, output datastructure is UPES_OUT_DS.
- We've a lot of running process instances of A_PTEMP in workflow runtime (production environment), which sends requests to a system (call it: SYS) through the UPES and receives the reply xml message.
- The reply xml message has changed, so we had to change some data containers in UPES_OUT_DS and also we modified A_PTEMP process template.
- Also SYS has changed and now, sends back the modified xml message to the UPES.
Question:
-----------
What happens with the already running process instances, if we import the modified A_PTEMP and of course the modified UPES_OUT_DS into the runtime env?
I mean, the original process instances still uses the original UPES_OUT_DS definitions(?) and that's why wait for the original xml reply message when the UPES starts running again?
(And the newly started process instances will use the new UPES_OUT_DS and thus, wait for the new xml message.)
Am I right??
_BUT_ SYS has already changed and only could send back the new xml reply message.
Could the original UPES process the reply message if the UPES_OUT_DS has _ONLY_ newly added data containers?
What is the nice way to handle this scenario, when the workflow has running processes but the interface between the wf and a back-end system has changed??
I hope I was clear and understandabel
Thanks in advance,
Robert
Last edited by Liquid on Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jmac |
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
You need to have the upes take into account which version of the output data structure it is working with. Generally I do this by having a container member that indicates which version I am running.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Liquid |
| Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 52
Location: Hungary, Europe
|
Hello Jmac!
Thanks for the fast reply. How do you mean that the upes have to take into account about the out DS version? Could you write me some more details?
If the reply message doesn't match to the out DS of the upes, the workflow runtime writes an error into to log and doesn't finish the activity. How can I decide within the process if the reply message was the original or the new version?
We've a container in the DS which could hold the version of the message.
But even if the upes set different version member values, when it sends out the request message, the back-end system _have to_ distinguish the versions and send back the appropriate one to the workflow.
Or is there any other way to handle it on the workflow side?
I mean by creating different datastructures even with different names etc. could the workflow runtime can handle this???
Best regards,
Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
The UPES must send back the properly formatted message to MQWF. So you either have to detect which version of the message is necessary by examining the container, or maybe just put in a Version member that will tell you directly which version of the container is necessary.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Liquid |
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 52
Location: Hungary, Europe
|
Hello Jmac!
uhum. Ok, thus the only way to handle the different message versions is to handle it _outside_ the workflow engine, and to reply proper message format according to the paralell (original and new) process instances. Am I right?
Thanks again,
regards,
Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Yes
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
