| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| XMLNSC.Element field type constant functioning correctly? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| mqjeff |
 Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Sandman wrote: |
There really wasn't anything specific about our company data in the response I posted or anything other than them asking if I could wait a few weeks for another [likely final] response. Nor did I provide anyone's names or email addresses, etc.
Beyond that, paraphrasing the details of their response seemed like a waste of time. They provided a thorough answer; why would I want to risk messing it up by putting it into my own words? |
Because it included information about the conversations going on between IBM L3 support and IBM development...
And because it represented part of a conversation you were having with IBM under terms that are designed to ensure that the conversation stays private to better serve both parties involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Sandman |
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 16 Oct 2001
Posts: 134
Location: Lincoln, RI
|
Yes, it did. Was that such secret information though - them discussing internally whether it's a defect or to just clarify in documentation that what I tried to do won't work?  It's not like I posted their names or teams.
Shame on me I guess. 
Bottom line for anyone who might run into this issue: it may be a defect. Or documentation may be updated to indicate that the CARDINALITY function won't work on XMLNSC.Element. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
Sandman: Thanks for trying to do the right thing - I take your point that you were just trying to help future readers of your post. I am assisting IBM L3 service on this problem, and in my judgement the text that you posted included details that were relevant only to you and IBM, and would be of no help to readers of this forum.
The wider point is, of course, that if one person is allowed to post their conversations with IBM L3 service then others might take it as license to do the same. That's wouldn't be helpful for IBM or for its customers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Sandman |
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 16 Oct 2001
Posts: 134
Location: Lincoln, RI
|
The only reason I posted the "private" info was because it had details about perhaps not resolving this (as a defect or documentation update) until after the New Year. In hindsight, I realize that I should've just said in my own words "There may not be an update til after New Year". I guess I didn't really see much of a difference in such harmless dialog. I stand corrected. Thank you for your help.
BTW, I just received a reply that it IS a defect, with a link to a hot fix (though I'm guessing you're already aware of that?  ). I will try it and report back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
Correct - it's a product defect. We've analyzed the issue in some depth, and it affects only the CARDINALITY function.
And yes, please do quote the number of the hot fix when you receive it - nothing confidential about that, and it will be useful info for anybody else who hits the same problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Sandman |
| Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 16 Oct 2001
Posts: 134
Location: Lincoln, RI
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
