| Author |
Message
|
| sumithar |
 Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:08 am Post subject: Messages look different between MQ Explorer and on Mainframe |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 47
|
Hi,
Firstly I am a Cobol dev on mainframe, so beg pardon if I don't sound knowledgeable.
We have an auditing process where a number of different apps running on various platforms write to an MQ on ZOS . I own a batch process that periodically GETs all the messages from this queue and writes to a DB2 table.
Recently a new Java App started to write to this queue. But he seems to be having issues with formatting or encoding or something.
When we look at the messages he is putting in the queue via MQ Explorer they look fine.
But if I use file manager on ISPF and look at them they seem strange.
Not sure where to start debugging. I am posting some screenshots
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JQaYbhYPpcR3Ocd-mz_-y60kchWHFHFu
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uoXZZZ5VIQ9aqhifTSynRQ_HoXN4ddYy
As you can see there is a difference in message length and also in the CCSID.
Hoping that you might have seen something like this?
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2020 11:43 am Post subject: Re: Messages look different between MQ Explorer and on Mainf |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| sumithar wrote: |
Hi,
Firstly I am a Cobol dev on mainframe, so beg pardon if I don't sound knowledgeable. |
No need to apologize. I got my start on big and reliable iron back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
| sumithar wrote: |
| Recently a new Java App started to write to this queue. But he seems to be having issues with formatting or encoding or something. |
What issues is the producing/consuming app having, specifically?
| sumithar wrote: |
When we look at the messages he is putting in the queue via MQ Explorer they look fine.
But if I use file manager on ISPF and look at them they seem strange. |
Which things seem strange to you? What I notice is that the MQExplorer and your ISPF tool display differently.
The CCSIDs seem appropriate for (from) the producing platforms. It's usually up to the consuming app to ask for conversion (ASCII to EBCDIC).
The endless dots ........ indicate that there is no equivalent displayable character for the ISPF app. This is typical for ASCII in an EBCDIC environment. You can type the HEX ON command line to see the HEX characters.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2020 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
It seems that the Java application might be JMS and is sending an RFH header
The queue should be defined via the URN like
| Code: |
| queue:///QNAME?client=1 |
Don't remember if it is client or clienttype... Anyways if the queue is configured in JNDI in MQ Explorer make sure it is set up with client type MQ and not JMS.
Hope it helps 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hughson |
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2020 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 1959
Location: Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
|
You could alter the queue definition to have PSPROP(NONE) so that any RFH2 header that the Java application adds, will not be delivered to any application that doesn't know how to handle it.
With regard to the different codepage (1208), ensure that the getting app on z/OS is using MQGMO_CONVERT - good practice to do so from day 1 whether you think you will ever need to convert or not, since it is a no-op if no conversion is needed.
Cheers,
Morag
_________________
Morag Hughson @MoragHughson
IBM MQ Technical Education Specialist
Get your IBM MQ training here!
MQGem Software |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sumithar |
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 47
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
It seems that the Java application might be JMS and is sending an RFH header
The queue should be defined via the URN like
| Code: |
| queue:///QNAME?client=1 |
Don't remember if it is client or clienttype... Anyways if the queue is configured in JNDI in MQ Explorer make sure it is set up with client type MQ and not JMS.
Hope it helps |
Thanks, I will pass that on to the Java Dev. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sumithar |
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 47
|
| hughson wrote: |
You could alter the queue definition to have PSPROP(NONE) so that any RFH2 header that the Java application adds, will not be delivered to any application that doesn't know how to handle it.
With regard to the different codepage (1208), ensure that the getting app on z/OS is using MQGMO_CONVERT - good practice to do so from day 1 whether you think you will ever need to convert or not, since it is a no-op if no conversion is needed.
Cheers,
Morag |
Thanks Morag. I will have to check with MQ Admin about changing Queue properties- I am inclined to think he'll demur- it's going to be, never had to do it all these days 
As for the MQGMO_CONVERT, the program is already doing it
| Code: |
COMPUTE MQGMO-OPTIONS = MQGMO-NONE +
MQGMO-NO-WAIT +
MQGMO-SYNCPOINT +
MQGMO-CONVERT +
MQGMO-FAIL-IF-QUIESCING
CALL MQGET USING WS-MQ-HCONN
WS-MQ-HOBJ
MQMD
MQGMO
WS-MQ-BUF-LEN
WS-RRBF362-LAYOUT
WS-MQ-DATA-LEN
WS-MQ-CC
WS-MQ-RC. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sumithar |
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 5:33 am Post subject: Re: Messages look different between MQ Explorer and on Mainf |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 47
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| sumithar wrote: |
Hi,
Firstly I am a Cobol dev on mainframe, so beg pardon if I don't sound knowledgeable. |
No need to apologize. I got my start on big and reliable iron back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
| sumithar wrote: |
| Recently a new Java App started to write to this queue. But he seems to be having issues with formatting or encoding or something. |
What issues is the producing/consuming app having, specifically?
| sumithar wrote: |
When we look at the messages he is putting in the queue via MQ Explorer they look fine.
But if I use file manager on ISPF and look at them they seem strange. |
Which things seem strange to you? What I notice is that the MQExplorer and your ISPF tool display differently.
The CCSIDs seem appropriate for (from) the producing platforms. It's usually up to the consuming app to ask for conversion (ASCII to EBCDIC).
The endless dots ........ indicate that there is no equivalent displayable character for the ISPF app. This is typical for ASCII in an EBCDIC environment. You can type the HEX ON command line to see the HEX characters. |
Hi the primary strange thing is that I don't see all those RFH blah blah stuff in the data part of the message in MQ Explorer. It could have to do with what fjb_saper wrote below (which I have communicated to the Java Dev)
Turning on Hex doesn't reveal anything new- it is all nulls and what not.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CG2NcRzdKw6rLkrjWqEidYVDCB3Q-ghS/view?usp=sharing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:57 am Post subject: Re: Messages look different between MQ Explorer and on Mainf |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| sumithar wrote: |
Hi the primary strange thing is that I don't see all those RFH blah blah stuff in the data part of the message in MQ Explorer. |
MQExplorer preferences allows you a variety of ways to display messages. Perhaps your MQExplorer is configured to suppress RFH stuff.
| sumithar wrote: |
| Turning on Hex doesn't reveal anything new- it is all nulls and what not. |
Many of the MQMD and other structure fields contain hex and what not - not everything is in displayable characters.
Each tool display things differently - until you customize it (where able).
In an earlier post here I asked if the consuming applications were having issues with these messages. You did not answer my question. RFH headers, are optional. It's the responsibility of both producing and consuming apps to determine if RFH headers are relevant.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sumithar |
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 47
|
Hi everybody who responded thank you very much. After that Java developer made the fix as suggested by adding this line to the yaml script
queue: ‘queue: ///AUDIT_QUEUE?targetClient=1’
the message came thru minus RFH header and all those funky characters.
Apparently we don't use JNDI anymore- I can't keep up! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
