| Author |
Message
|
| santy |
 Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: Tagged Delimited with message set on broker 6.1 |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 141
|
Hi,
While testing the message set with physical format as TDS on broker 6.1 the tag names are appearing along with the values in the output.
the LocalComplex Element has Data Element Seperation property set as Tagged Delimited as a result of which all the elements belonging to this group/complex element are appearing in the output though the tag names have not set for simple elements (simple elements means elements belonging to complex type).
Can anyone know the solution on this ?
Thanks,
Santy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| kimbert |
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
| If you don't want tags in your output message, then don't use 'Tagged Delimited'. Use 'All Elements Delimited'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| santy |
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 141
|
Hi Kimbert,
For Tagged Delimited, I have "Length Of Tag" property set as 7, and if I change it to "All Elemenets Delimited", it gets disabled.
So it may affect the output. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| santy |
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 141
|
Hi Kimbert,
I have tried with your solution, the same output I'm getting.
Any other solution/suggestion/idea?
Santy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
| You need to selected "all elements delimited" for each complex type in your tree. This property affects the direct sons of any specific complex, and is not inherited by those complexes below it - you have to set it manually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
santy,
It's a bit difficult to advise you when I haven't seen your message format. You need to describe it in detail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| scravr |
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 03 Apr 2003
Posts: 391
Location: NY NY USA 10021
|
"All Elements Delimited" does not help.
Element + data comes on data fields. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
Are you working with santy ( and is this connected to your other post? ). If not, the next step to resolving this is to describe the message format.
Or was that just a comment about my unhelpful advice  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| santy |
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 141
|
Hi,
The message set structure is like
Complex Element = A with Data Element Seperation set to "Tagged Delimited"
Complex Element = B (Child of Complex Element A) with Data Element Seperation set to "All Elements Delimited"
Complex Element = C (Child of Complex Element A) with Data Element Seperation set to "Variable Length Elements Delimited"
and the message format is TDS.
Problem is :- All the elements under complx elements (tag names) B and C are getting populated along with Data.
I hope this has clear you my concern.
Any solution?
Santy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| santy |
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 141
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
Sorry to be a pain, but words cannot describe a message format unless you use a lot of them, and choose them very, very carefully.
The easiest way to describe your problem is to post a sample output message, a sample message tree that you want to write out, and the actual message that you are getting. Those are key components of the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| santy |
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 141
|
Hi Kimbert,
here are the required details.
Trace Tree
(0x01000000):Header_A = (
(0x0300000B):FIRSTNAE = 'XXX' (CHARACTER)
(0x0300000B):LASTNAME = 'YYY' (CHARACTER)
)
(0x03000000):B = '' (CHARACTER)
(0x03000000):C = '' (CHARACTER)
(0x0300000B):Header_D = ' ' (CHARACTER)
(0x01000000):Header_E = (
(0x0300000B):ID = 'SSA1234' (CHARACTER)
)
(0x01000000):Header = (
(0x03000000):ACCOUNT1A = '11111' (CHARACTER)
(0x03000000):ACCOUNT2B = '22222' (CHARACTER)
(0x03000000):ACCOUNT3C = '33333' (CHARACTER)
)
OUTPUT GETTING THROUGH 6.1
~A~XXXYYY~B~~C~~D~ ~E~SSA1234 ~Z~ACCOUNT1A11111ACCOUNT2B22222ACOUNT3C33333
OUTPUT GETTING THROUGH 6.0
~A~XXXYYY~B~~C~~D~ ~E~SSA1234 ~Z~111112222233333
I want the output 6.1 to be same as 6.0.
Any help ?[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
| Quote: |
| I want the output 6.1 to be same as 6.0 |
This is the first time you have revealed to us that you have a working v6.0 message flow  .
Please try harder to describe the essential facts about your problem - we have just wasted a lot of time trying to advise you on how to model your message.
I don't know why v6.1 is behaving differently from v6.0. Are you really using exactly the same message set message flow? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| santy |
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 141
|
Kimbert,
I'm using the same message flows and message set developed in 6.0 and testing them on 6.1.
IBM has recommended following solution on this but I'm not able to unsderstand it.
TDS physical format. TDS property Data Element Separation is set to Tagged Delimited. In Version 6.1, when parsing a Tagged Delimited group, the parser attempts to make sense of groups where the members appear out of order in the message bit stream, even if the group Composition property is set to Sequence or OrderedSet. However, if the group contains either an embedded message or a complex element or group that cannot be identified from the bit stream, all the members of the group must appear in the bit stream in the same order that they are defined in the model. If they appear out of order, the group is not parsed correctly and has unpredictable results. One symptom of this condition is the appearance of self-defining elements in the message tree, caused by a failure to match an element to the model. A specific example of this condition is where your message contains an embedded message and you are using either the Message Key or Message Identity technique to identify the embedded message. If the element that is providing the message key or message identity value fails to be matched with the model, the parser does not know whether to interpret its value as a message key or message identity. Prior to Version 6.0, the parser attempts to make sense of all out-of-order Tagged Delimited groups, with a consequent reduction in performance. In Version 6.1, if this behavior is a problem, consider modeling the unordered content of the group as an embedded child group with Composition set to UnorderedSet. A complex element or group can be identified from the bit stream if it provides a group indicator, a tag, or a data pattern, or if its child members provide a group indicator, tag, or data pattern. Despite its name, under some circumstances members of a Tagged Delimited group do not need to provide a tag; specifically, if the member is an embedded message or is a complex element or group.
So looking for your help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
