| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| V5 vs. V6 XML XML output difference |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| smeunier |
 Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:35 am Post subject: V5 vs. V6 XML XML output difference |
 |
|
Partisan
Joined: 19 Aug 2002
Posts: 305
Location: Green Mountains of Vermont
|
I have a customer whos application has failed to process XML data from a V6 broker vs V5 broker. After doing a comparative analysis of the output streams, it seems that the problem is related to how V6 is formating the XML. In V5 the ending XML tree structure tags are on a new line. In V6, the same data when outputted has the ending XML tree structure tags at the tailend of the CDATA section. I ran both through an XML parser and both are well formed documents.
Its my feeling they are trying to process XML data as line records and not using an XML parser(tsk tsk on them). But in the name of customer satisfaction, I got to thinking, if there is a way to force the formatting of the XML tree in the output message?
V5 output example
| Code: |
<![CDATA[
some data
some data
]]></payload-content></payload></payloads></mb-nvelope>
|
V6 output example
| Code: |
<![CDATA[
some data
some data]]></payload-content></payload></payloads></mb-nvelope>
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| kimbert |
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
Which XML domain?
Same domain on v5 and v6? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smeunier |
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 19 Aug 2002
Posts: 305
Location: Green Mountains of Vermont
|
| Sorry.....XML domain was used in V5. Same flow, was ported to V6 broker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
Put a Trace node into both flows. You will probably find that the message tree is different immediately after the *input* node ( i.e. it is a change in behaviour in the underlying XML scanner ).
When you see the difference, you might be able to fix the problem by adding the missing text node to the output tree. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
