| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Re : Error in parsing Swift Message |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| mqsi_guy |
 Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:55 am Post subject: Re : Error in parsing Swift Message |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 9
|
Hi,
I am doing a SWIFT to XML transformation in WMQI 2.1 and using the IBM provided messageset ( version 2003) for the purpose.
I am able to do the transformation succefully on a Windows 2000 platform (Websphere MQ version 5.3 CSD 5, Websphere MQ Integrator 2.1 CSD 7), but while trying to port the flows on a unix box, am getting parser exception error.
The unix box is at (Websphere MQ 5.3 CSD 5 and Websphere MQ Integrator 2.1 CSD 4).
Trace
------
| Quote: |
2004-09-09 09:32:57.163752 23 ParserException BIP5357E: Message Type P
ath incomapatible with Message Type Prefix.
The Message Type Path 'SwiftEnvelope' is
incompatible with the Message Type Prefix 'SwiftEnvelope'. This may be because t
here is a Message Type Prefix specified in Message Set 'ITSMS70098001' but the M
essage Type Path was relative and instead of absolute (preceded by the '/' chara
cter).
Check that the Message Type Prefix combin
ed with the Message Type Path resolves to a valid complete message type path. Ma
ke sure that there is correct use of the '/' character for absolute paths. |
Wondering if the problem is with the older CSD on the Unix box. Any help is highly appreciated.
Regards,
mqsi_guy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| shanson |
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Posts: 344
Location: IBM Hursley
|
I think it is the CSD level. I seem to recall someone raising an issue about message type prefix path problems with an EDIFACT message set. Meantime try what the error message says, and change the path.
If no joy then e-mail dubadapt@ie.ibm.com - they are the guys in Dublin that created the SWIFT msg set. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lisa |
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:18 am Post subject: Deploy |
|
|
Master
Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 287
Location: NJ
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you should not deploy CSD7 level code (Control Center) to CSD4 level broker! That's part of your problem. The other part is, IBM SWIFT message set needs CSD level 5 or 6 in order to work correctly.
I hope this helps,
Lisa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqsi_guy |
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 9
|
Shanson,
Thanks for the pointer. I am checking with IBM for the fix.
Lisa,
The initial development was done on Windows platform with WMQI 2.1 CSD 7. But, as I am trying to port the application to an environment which is at CSD4, I think it would be better approach to upgrade the development environment from CSD4 to CSD5 and deploy (the message flows developed with CSD7) on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| shanson |
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Posts: 344
Location: IBM Hursley
|
Fyi I tracked down the following in an e-mail, which discussed difference between V5 and V2.1 CSD04.
| Quote: |
The difference in behaviour between the releases is likely to be as a result of APAR IC34708 which went into V2.1 CSD05. In an earlier note you mentioned your customer was on CSD04 which will not include this APAR whereas V5 does.
The results you are seeing on V5 is the correct behaviour and this behaviour is compatible with the V2.1 product from CSD05 onwards.
The general rule is that if your message type path does not contain a forward slash as the first character, then it is a relative path then the message type prefix should be pre-pended to form the full path. However, when APAR IC34708 was introduced, an additional test was performed to check whether the message type path already contained the message type prefix irrespective of whether it was relative or absolute.
When you specify either /EDIFACTInterchange or EDIFACTInterchange as your message type path, then in both cases these already start with your messageSet prefix of EDIFACTInterchange and hence you would get the same behaviour from both, and in both cases they parse successfully. |
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
