| Author |
Message
|
| rajeevreddy |
 Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:17 am Post subject: Fixed Length CWF Binary Vs TDS |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Sep 2004
Posts: 39
|
Can some one suggest me deciding if we need to go with Fixed Length CWF Binary or TDS message sets if we have COBOL copy book handy. And also any advantages and disadvantages in using CWF vs TDS.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:30 am Post subject: Re: Fixed Length CWF Binary Vs TDS |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| rajeevreddy wrote: |
| Can some one suggest me deciding if we need to go with Fixed Length CWF Binary or TDS message sets if we have COBOL copy book handy. |
How is the data described? Does it have tags?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MQEnthu |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 329
Location: India
|
| Quote: |
| Can some one suggest me deciding if we need to go with Fixed Length CWF Binary or TDS message sets if we have COBOL copy book handy. And also any advantages and disadvantages in using CWF vs TDS |
CWF is used if it is fixed length message. You can configure the length of each field in the CWF properties. The TDS allows to model different representations. Suppose if you are fields have tags and are seperated by delimiter and terminators at the end...
So it entirely depends on the data you are going to model (as mentioned by Vitor)
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wmbhelp/v6r1m0/topic/com.ibm.etools.mft.doc/ad00770_.htm 
_________________
-----------------------------------------------
It is good to remember the past,
but don't let past capture your future |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rajeevreddy |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Sep 2004
Posts: 39
|
We don't have tags as part of data. To build a message as fixed length we have to pad with 0's for numbers and spaces for char's, instead of doing that we were thinking of going with TDS. I am not sure at this point if we need go with CWF or TDS. Broker Performance wise which one is better CSF or TDS.
Incoming data is a BLOB which has a COBOL copy book defined.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
If you have a COBOL copy book, then use CWF. You can import your copybook to create your message definition file automatically.
From v6.1 TDS can handle most of the COBOL physical types, but it still
- is not populated by a COBOL import
- does not handle COBOL-specific features like structure alignment and skip bytes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rajeevreddy |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Sep 2004
Posts: 39
|
Thanks a lot Kimbert.
Do you see any Broker performance differences between CWF Vs TDS? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
Pre v6.0, CWF was quicker at fixed-length data.
Since v6.0, TDS and CWF are so close that the difference probably doesn't matter. If you're interested in the details, we publish a performance report for every released version of WMB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
