| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Cobol redefines, mapping node or ESQL ? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| KIT_INC |
 Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 7:17 pm Post subject: Cobol redefines, mapping node or ESQL ? |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 589
|
| We have big message (5K) described by a COBOL copy book with a number of redefines. As part of our planning, we want to see if we can use mapping node instead of ESQL. We have limited experience with mapping node and like to find out if mapping node can be use to handle the redefines. We can only determine which is the redefined structure to use by looking at the content of certain fields of the incomimg message. We search the info center for information with not much luck ( key word used was COBOL redefine mapping node). Can anyone provide pointers to any reading materials on this topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| kimbert |
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
| Quote: |
| like to find out if mapping node can be use to handle the redefines |
I don't see why not.
| Quote: |
| We can only determine which is the redefined structure to use by looking at the content of certain fields of the incomimg message. |
Sounds like a conditional mapping. I'm pretty sure that the v7 mapper can do that, and I'm absolutely certain that the v8 mapper can.
However, if you're on v8 then you would be better off putting the rules into the DFDL model. DFDL allows you to guide the parsing of the data using 'discriminator' rules that inspect previously-parsed data. Then your map would be simpler, and would only have to concern itself with the logical structure of the data. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Even at v7, the MRM can be used to resolve, at least for certain kinds of cases, a COBOL redefine. particularly I'm thinking of cases where you think you have a fixed-length record, but on inspection you actually have tagged data - i.e. where the first field in the redefine is a fixed constant value for each branch.
There are a lot more of these kinds of things than people expect. You can then adjust the model to remove the first record, and use it's value as the TAG and use the TAG to resolve a choice that represents the redefine paths.
Again, then you only deal with the logical structure of the data in your mapping.
If you are going to use Mapping node in v7 for this kind of thing, you should expect to have lots of submaps - one for each redefine path at a minimum. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
