| Author |
Message
|
| rmbowma |
 Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: Can I use a MRM/CWF message with the Route Node? |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 28
|
I think the answer is 'yes' but I have not been able to code the XPath statement correctly (using the Node's Wizard) to cause the Route Node to transfer control out the Terminal that I desire.
My input message contains a 1-byte character field. I have a filter expression which checks for the value of 'A'. When this field contains the 'A' value, control still doesn't pass out my dynamic Terminal.
Anybody have any ideas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| MQEnthu |
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 329
Location: India
|
Please let us know which node you are using to filter the messages based on the field...
_________________
-----------------------------------------------
It is good to remember the past,
but don't let past capture your future |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
| Quote: |
| I think the answer is 'yes' |
Correct. Any node can operate on any message tree. That's one of the basic principles of message broker.
| Quote: |
| but I have not been able to code the XPath statement correctly (using the Node's Wizard) |
Probably not your fault - there is a known problem with the XPath builder when the domain is MRM. An MRM message tree does not include the message name, but the XPath builder puts the message name in the XPath. You should be able to get it working by simply removing the message name from the generated XPath expression.
e.g.
$InputRoot/MRM/myMessage/field1 becomes $InputRoot/MRM/field1
$InputBody/myMessage/field1 becomes $InputBody/field1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rmbowma |
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 28
|
I'm using a Routing Node and Broker 6.1.0.3.
Thank you for the suggestions. The problem indeed was the incorrectly generated XPath by the Wizard. When I changed the generated statement from $Body/<msg type>/Field1 to $Body/Field1, my filter works and I get expected behavior from the Node.
By the way, when I corrected the XPath, I got a couple warnings in the Toolkit Problems View but I ignore them and my test worked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rmbowma |
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 28
|
Kimbert, a follow-up question. Do you know when the fix for my problem is going to be distributed? In Fixpak 4?
I'm surprised my problem hasn't been reported and fixed by now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
| Quote: |
| Do you know when the fix for my problem is going to be distributed? In Fixpak 4? |
A fix is being worked on, but I can't make promises about a particular fix pack. If you really need a fix by a particular date, you should open a PMR and get an iFix. But you know how to work around it now, so it's probably not worth it
| Quote: |
| I'm surprised my problem hasn't been reported and fixed by now |
Very few users have reported the problem. I'm as surprised as you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rmbowma |
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 28
|
Thanks, Kimbert. I asked about when the fix will be distributed so I can give my customer choices: Use the work-around, open a PMR for an iFix, or wait for the fix to be distributed via Fixpak.
Maybe not many people have reported the issue because the Node is new and not many people have tried it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
