| Author |
Message
|
| tekt9 |
 Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:33 am Post subject: XSLT 2.0 |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 15
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
you could roll your own and do it via Java (shudders)
IMHO, XSLT is a bit of tech that should just curl up in a corner and die. But that's my opinion (that is worthless in the larger scope of things)
But some of the hack's I've seen used to get round the limitations of XLST 1.0 are just mindboggling but when it takes up to a minute to transform a message is just silly especially when a mapping node can do it in a second.
On another forum, my sig says
'If the answer is XSLT then you are asking the wrong question'.
Naturally other people may well have different views and opinions.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| shanson |
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Posts: 344
Location: IBM Hursley
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| t603 |
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 16 Oct 2012
Posts: 88
Location: Prague, the Czech Republic, Europe
|
Yes, please vote for XSL-T 2.0 (or even 3.0) support in IIB. I already did it. I can not imagine better technology for transforming XML than XSL-T - easy to learn, easy to develop, standardized, simply to test, debug, supported by stable XML DEV IDEs.
Moreover I would like to have capability to have reading and writing of message headers, environments, local environments using XSL-T.
XSL-T is fast enough unless one invoke Java for each message. One can try to and measure speed of XSL-T transformation using Saxon. ESQL looks for me messy by its nature for XML transformation with all its nonstandard XPath-like syntax, lack of common functions etc.
Naturally other people may well have different views and opinions. 
Direct URLs to the both XSL-T 2.0 related RFE (once You are already logged) are:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=53855
and
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=47235 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| t603 wrote: |
| ESQL looks for me messy by its nature for XML transformation with all its nonstandard XPath-like syntax, lack of common functions etc. |
Care to elaborate further?
The Message Tree in Broker/IIB is totally format agnostic. This is perfect IMHO. Not everythig in this world is XML.
Can you expand on why XSLT is easy to debug. I've found it anything but. There again, I'm slightly biased in having the opinion that it is a two legged dog that should be led away and humanely destroyed as soon as possible (like Flash btw). 
_________________
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 |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| t603 wrote: |
| ESQL looks for me messy by its nature for XML transformation with all its nonstandard XPath-like syntax, lack of common functions etc. |
Tell me again why you're paying all this money to IBM rather than just using an XSLT engine....?
| t603 wrote: |
| Naturally other people may well have different views and opinions. |
And who's to say which is the correct one?
I do sometimes think that the ability to execute an XPath directly from ESQL rather than a SELECT (i.e. a choice, not a replacement) would be nice.
If memory serves and my limited understanding holds up, there's something about XSLT 2.0 in the IIBv10 Open Beta. You might want to check that out.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| t603 |
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 16 Oct 2012
Posts: 88
Location: Prague, the Czech Republic, Europe
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| Tell me again why you're paying all this money to IBM rather than just using an XSLT engine....? |
...Because of IIB's (Broker's) great integration (~ connection) capability!
That is why I am not using XProc in Calabash, but IIB now. Well, maybe because of it (integration vs transformation) the new name of The Broker is IBM Integration Bus and not IBM Transformation Bus
| Vitor wrote: |
| If memory serves and my limited understanding holds up, there's something about XSLT 2.0 in the IIBv10 Open Beta. You might want to check that out. |
...I already checked it out each the second OpenBeta version. Still did not find it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| t603 wrote: |
| Vitor wrote: |
| If memory serves and my limited understanding holds up, there's something about XSLT 2.0 in the IIBv10 Open Beta. You might want to check that out. |
...I already checked it out each the second OpenBeta version. Still did not find it. |
I'm doing great this morning 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| t603 |
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 16 Oct 2012
Posts: 88
Location: Prague, the Czech Republic, Europe
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| Care to elaborate further? |
Too long for this forum, I did (and do) not want to start any useless flamewar, I just wanted to advocated my beloved XSL-T 2.0, agains Your "let it die" opinion XSL-T - standalone, granular by nature, large user base, stackoverflow, oXygen...
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| The Message Tree in Broker/IIB is totally format agnostic. This is perfect IMHO. Not everythig in this world is XML. |
I said nothing about and against tree model. I did not see the non breaking binding between tree model and ESQL IMHO.
Also we have not only assembler, C, but also Java, awk, XSL-T, SQL... Most of data formats have their own manipulation languangue IMHO. Of course we have to have ESQL or Java for transformations of CopyBooks etc. in Broker, but while we have the ability to use PHP in IIB for transformation of ???, I would like to have well-implemented (maybe deployed as Java object) XSL-T 2.0 for transformation of XML (with access to the headers, environment), which is mainstream for short message exchange now.
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| XSL-T ... should be led away and humanely destroyed as soon as possible (like Flash btw). |
And the winner of similarity to the closed, non standardized, special tool needed for development and running of Flash is... Nooo, let's be all happy, all we need is perfect IIB for our job, do not we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20696
Location: LI,NY
|
Sorry to rain somewhat on your parade. I just find it more intuitive and easier to do some transformations in ESQL than trying to do it in XSLT (whether 1.0 or 2.0)... But then that just might be me. 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| joebuckeye |
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 364
Location: Columbus, OH
|
I have found XSLT to be useful in certain situations and can be quite elegant when done correctly. XSLT needs a different mindset from 'normal' programing to be done effectively.
But then again, almost all of our XSLT work gets done on Datapower and not broker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ghoshly |
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:17 am Post subject: Support XSLT 2.0 in XSLT node |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 325
|
Knowledge Center for IIB v10 ah36080_.htm still says XSLT 1.0 is what is supported.
Only XPATH 2.0 is supported through mapping node. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Right. There's a difference between what the XSLT node does, and supports, and the Mapping node.
If you really need XSLT 2.0 support and don't want to use the Mapping node, it should be straight forward to use a JavaCompute node to do this (or a .NET compute node). But it may be complicated to install.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
