| Author |
Message
|
| surya.kesh |
 Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:20 pm Post subject: How to achieve the same functionality without using ": |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7
|
How to achieve the same functionality without using ":"
SET OutputRoot.XML.{prefixOne}:{'PurchaseOrder'} = InputRoot.XML.prefixOne:PurchaseOrder
_________________
Thanks and regards,
Surya Pratim Kesh |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| dipankar |
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 171
|
Can you expain more what is your exact requirements? Better you post the input as well as output (required)
_________________
Regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
There's no reason to put 'PurchaseOrder' in {}'s. I'm not sure there's a good reason to put prefixOne in {}.
If your messages have namespaces in them, you aren't going to be able to reference fields in the logical message tree without qualifying your references by the namespace - because each element's name has the namespace as part of the name. So you can't refer to prefixOne:PurchaseOrder as PurchaseOrder, because that's a different name.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| dilse |
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 270
|
I agree with you Jeff 100%. But if surya.kesh is working on WMQI2.1, It makes sense to use 'prefixOne' in {} s to some extent since WMQI2.1 doesn't support namespaces and "namespace" is just a string that prefixes the element. So he can assign different values to the same variable 'prefixOne' to different namespaces and use that same variable as different namespaces as long as they are not clashing.
Please let me know if I am wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Trying to use 2.1 with namespaces at all is asking for trouble larger than using {} can solve, I think, no matter how it's used.
In general, building new flows with 2.1 at this point is a poor decision. New flows should be built in 5 or 6, and old flows should be being migrated.
Either that, or Broker should be being phased out entirely.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| dilse |
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 270
|
My assumption was that the specified code was already there in Production and I was trying to analyze the situation where he could use such a statement.
| Quote: |
| Trying to use 2.1 with namespaces at all is asking for trouble larger than using {} can solve, I think, no matter how it's used. |
It sure is..
Appreciate your thoughts on this though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
