| Author |
Message
|
| mqjeff |
 Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| broker_new |
| Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 614
Location: Washington DC
|
any videos, redbooks, presentations to share with us from Impact? 
_________________
IBM ->Let's build a smarter planet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Esa |
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 1387
Location: Finland
|
I didn't find in Integration Bus V9 announcement any mention of new DFDL connectivitys packs, something that I think should have had priority one, an EDI connectivity pack for example ...
DFDL inherinting from WTX, how hard can it be to convert WTX type trees into DFDL? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| broker_new |
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 614
Location: Washington DC
|
it routes to the Message Broker download..looks like we need to wait till June to play with it. 
_________________
IBM ->Let's build a smarter planet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Esa wrote: |
| DFDL inherinting from WTX, how hard can it be to convert WTX type trees into DFDL? |
Given that DFDL represents a logical model that uses Broker native data types (well, I'm sure kimbert will quibble and say that they're XML Schema data types), rather than a WTX type tree which uses WTX native data types (Integer16 anyone?)...
I'd say the answer depends entirely on how machine consumable the specification for WTX models is, as to whether or not it's easy to write a parser for them that can output XML schema with DFDL annotations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Esa |
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 1387
Location: Finland
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
I'd say the answer depends entirely on how machine consumable the specification for WTX models is, as to whether or not it's easy to write a parser for them that can output XML schema with DFDL annotations. |
Thanks, mqjeff, for answering my rhetorical question which in its less rhetorical form actually spells "why hasn't it been done yet?"
The answer being, of course: because no customer has formally requested it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Esa wrote: |
| The answer being, of course: because no customer has formally requested it? |
So you think IBM should produce materials for the pure intellectual joy of it, not because they can sell them?
Well of course IBM have done that, do do that and and I'm sure will continue to do that. But I doubt such things are, as you phrased it, "priority one".
So my utterly non-rhetorical question is:
if you want this as much as you seem to want this and I'm correct in my assumption you're a customer, how can you say no customer has formally requested it? Because your first logical action on seeing the lack of EDI connectivity packs & conversion of WTX type trees would have been to formally request such things.
Thus increasing the priority of something I'm sure various people are working on.
Also DFDL does not inherit anything from WTX.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Esa |
| Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 1387
Location: Finland
|
| Vitor wrote: |
if you want this as much as you seem to want this and I'm correct in my assumption you're a customer, how can you say no customer has formally requested it? Because your first logical action on seeing the lack of EDI connectivity packs & conversion of WTX type trees would have been to formally request such things.
Thus increasing the priority of something I'm sure various people are working on. |
As you may have guessed, I'm so lazy that I'm trying to provoke someone else to take the action.
I will talk to my client and see if we can make a request.
| Esa wrote: |
Also DFDL does not inherit anything from WTX. |
Yes it does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Esa wrote: |
As you may have guessed, I'm so lazy that I'm trying to provoke someone else to take the action.
I will talk to my client and see if we can make a request. |
So if someone requests it, it will get done. If a lot of people request it, it will get done faster..
| Esa wrote: |
| Vitor wrote: |
| Also DFDL does not inherit anything from WTX. |
Yes it does. |
And I wouldn't know one way or the other; I'm quoting the guy at IMPACT yesterday who does IBM's implementation of DFDL & is co-chair of the OGF group for DFDL. Cite your source.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mapa |
| Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 09 Aug 2001
Posts: 257
Location: Malmö, Sweden
|
I agree with Esa since the lack of a complete EDI-catalogue actually disqualifies the broker for being considered as a valid integration platform for some companies. (Yes, as techlead for such projects I have witnessed it first hand). It is quite common to have this built in as part of the product offering if you look at the competition from other vendors.
Maybe it is to not compete with the other IBM B2B offerings? I don't know.
I know that IBM Dublin very early produced an EDI package for the MRM that we 10 years ago asked the price for it and it turned out to be more than it would cost us to purchase a at the time state of the art B2B platform, so we kept the B2B software (upgraded the license) and now the company ( I don't work there anylonger) is planning on closing down the broker and move all A2A to the B2B solution instead (which actually is IBM, since we went for Stirling Commerce GIS shortly before IBM purchased it).
Looking at Gartners magical quadrant integration platforms (don't remember the name of it now) the consideration for IBM is the many overlapping products (so consolidating WESB and WMB is one good move). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Esa |
| Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 1387
Location: Finland
|
I'm facing the same situation now. We are looking for a future replacement of WTX as a transformation platform. Message Broker is not being considered because it lacks support of industry formats. WTX was originally selected as a temporary solution since MRM (that has separately purchaseable support for industry formats) and the V7 mapping node was going to be replaced.
I guess MRM is not going to be deprecated and you could use the MRM-based industry pacs with the new mapping node, but somehow I get the impression that it could be a risky choice if you are planning to run the next platform for, say, 6 to 10 years.
| Vitor wrote: |
| Cite your source. |
I'm not claiming that DFDL would inherit any code from WTX, but ideas and functionality...
http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/2010-January/001244.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| Esa wrote: |
I guess MRM is not going to be deprecated and you could use the MRM-based industry pacs with the new mapping node, but somehow I get the impression that it could be a risky choice if you are planning to run the next platform for, say, 6 to 10 years.
|
Have you asked IBM through your IBM rep something like this question
| Quote: |
What are your plans to move the IBM Swift Format(/other Industry solution) solution from the MRM Parser to the DFDL one?
|
I would only then even consider discounting the use of IBM IB (V9 or later) in a long term solution.
Given that it took IBM a really long time to get rid of the old Neon rules and formatter, I'd say that the MRM parser will be around for more years that I have to go before I retire.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Esa |
| Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 1387
Location: Finland
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| Esa wrote: |
I guess MRM is not going to be deprecated and you could use the MRM-based industry pacs with the new mapping node, but somehow I get the impression that it could be a risky choice if you are planning to run the next platform for, say, 6 to 10 years.
|
Have you asked IBM through your IBM rep something like this question
|
No, I just saw the light while arguing with you guys. This is definitely something we must check. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Esa |
| Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 1387
Location: Finland
|
Unfortunately it didn't take long to find out that there is no ready made EDI solution for message broker - other than WTX.
My memory failed me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Esa wrote: |
Unfortunately it didn't take long to find out that there is no ready made EDI solution for message broker - other than WTX.
My memory failed me. |
It really depends on what you mean by "EDI" and what you mean by "Solution".
And as always, any statement about what is available *now* is subject to change. What with the time and the keeping on ticking ticking ticking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
