| Author |
Message
|
| j.f.sorge |
 Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:59 am Post subject: limitation on MessageIdentity within TDS domain |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 218
|
I'm using WMB 6.1.0.8 and have several issues when using the TDS domain. The last one where I created a workaround is a message containing five different record types, each identified at first character (M, P, E, S, *). Parsing works fine except for the S. BUT after I have changed the MessageAlias from S to Z and the first character in the record (while reading the file) to Z it works correctly. So it seems to be a problem with the S character...
Does anyone know that there is a limitation on the characters you may use for MessageIdentity?
_________________
IBM Certified Solution Designer - WebSphere MQ V6.0
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.0
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
There shouldn't be any such limitation.
Take a service trace of a single run of the flow when using S and another when using Z. Compare the two to see what's going on... then probably open a PMR, after performing other mustgather and confirming that there aren't APARs in this area in the released 6.1.0.9. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
I agree with mqjeff.
Based on your description of the format, you may be able to avoid Message Alies/Message Identity and just use simple tags to identify the records. Did you try that before, or is there a reason why you need to use a multi-part message structure? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| j.f.sorge |
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 218
|
| kimbert wrote: |
| Based on your description of the format, you may be able to avoid Message Alies/Message Identity and just use simple tags to identify the records. Did you try that before, or is there a reason why you need to use a multi-part message structure? |
I did not try to use simple tags but could give it a try. Just used the multi-part structure as I had a COBOL copy book which could be imported easily.
_________________
IBM Certified Solution Designer - WebSphere MQ V6.0
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.0
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| j.f.sorge |
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 218
|
To make sure that there is not any limition I have raised PMR 88915,031,724 although multi-message-definition works when doing workarounds.
_________________
IBM Certified Solution Designer - WebSphere MQ V6.0
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.0
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
