| Author |
Message
|
| ydsk |
 Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:54 am Post subject: parsing XML in COBOL on mainframe |
 |
|
Chevalier
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 410
|
Hi,
Our architecture looks like:
Struts/JMS (xml) <----> WMB <-----> mainframe/MQ/CICS/DB2
A user fills in some form fields and clicks a link on a struts web page in the front end and it goes as an XML via WMB to mainframe where SQL is executed against DB2 and a response is sent back. It is a low volume application, and fully within the intranet.
Our development team is debating whether message broker should pass along the incoming XML to mainframe without transforming it to COBOL.
We are using WMB because the enterprise policy is forcing us to. Otherwise, WMB isn't required in our case.
If someone has a document highlighting pros / cons of doing one way or the other, please forward it to me. I mean WMB doing XML-to-XML vs XML-to-COBOL.
Thanks
ydsk.
sdm.test@hotmail.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:10 pm Post subject: Re: parsing XML in COBOL on mainframe |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| ydsk wrote: |
| We are using WMB because the enterprise policy is forcing us to. Otherwise, WMB isn't required in our case. |
But as you've got it, you might as well use it.
| ydsk wrote: |
| If someone has a document highlighting pros / cons of doing one way or the other, please forward it to me. I mean WMB doing XML-to-XML vs XML-to-COBOL. |
Well doing this sort of conversion is the bread and butter of WMB and is going to be considerably easier than trying to parse XML with COBOL. Especially if it's an existing COBOL app that currently accepts a copybook format. Using WMB means you can use the COBOL unmodified and same yourself a lot of testing.
My 2 cents, other views equally valid, etc, etc. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
| Cobol V3 has builtin XML support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| zpat wrote: |
| Cobol V3 has builtin XML support. |
Yes.
Is it faster to rewrite a COBOL app than a new Broker flow?
Is it better to tightly couple the front-end with COBOL applications? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ydsk |
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 410
|
Ours is a brand new application. All the code components including Java, struts, COBOL, WMB, etc are being developed now.
Any more ideas for/against ?
Thanks.
ydsk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Well for the sake of flexibility I would keep the transformation on the broker... But that's just me... 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Cobol V3 XML parsing is quite efficient. I've seen it used in large applications without problems.
The ideal design is XML over MQ all the way to the application adapter.
Converting XML to CWF in the broker makes sense only if it is easier in some way (e.g. avoids modifying existing applications). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
