| Author |
Message
|
| francoisvdm |
 Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:35 am Post subject: Floworder node disable second leg |
 |
|
Partisan
Joined: 09 Aug 2001
Posts: 332
|
Is there a way (or what is the correct way) to prevent the second leg of a floworder node to execute?
I would like to do this if something went wrong in the first leg.
Thank you
_________________
If you do not know the answer or you get the urge to answer with "RTFM" or "Search better in this forum", please refrain from doing so, just move on to the next question. Much appreciated.
Francois van der Merwe |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:19 am Post subject: Re: Floworder node disable second leg |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| francoisvdm wrote: |
I would like to do this if something went wrong in the first leg.
|
Could you expand on what you mean here? What sort of 'went wrong' do you mean?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| francoisvdm |
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 09 Aug 2001
Posts: 332
|
Lets say I'm unhappy with the data in the incoming msg, I do not want to roll back the msg, I just want to send out an error msg....but that means I do not want to do the second leg.
_________________
If you do not know the answer or you get the urge to answer with "RTFM" or "Search better in this forum", please refrain from doing so, just move on to the next question. Much appreciated.
Francois van der Merwe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| francoisvdm |
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 09 Aug 2001
Posts: 332
|
The documentation says the following:
| Quote: |
| Your message flow performance can benefit from including the FlowOrder node in a situation where one sequence of processing that is required for a message is significantly shorter than another sequence of processing. If you connect the shorter sequence to the first terminal, any failure is identified quickly and prevents execution of the second longer sequence of processing. |
So...how do I do this "prevents execution of the second..."?
Thanks
_________________
If you do not know the answer or you get the urge to answer with "RTFM" or "Search better in this forum", please refrain from doing so, just move on to the next question. Much appreciated.
Francois van der Merwe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
Set a flag in say Environemt.Continue = False;
The after the start of the second leg add a Filter node. Just drop off the end (ie no connection ) if the value is False
etc etc etc
_________________
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 |
|
|
| francoisvdm |
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 09 Aug 2001
Posts: 332
|
yes...true....but that sounds a bit "not clean"...but hey, if that is the only way.....
_________________
If you do not know the answer or you get the urge to answer with "RTFM" or "Search better in this forum", please refrain from doing so, just move on to the next question. Much appreciated.
Francois van der Merwe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
I believe that if an exception is caught upstream of flow order, then the second leg won't execute.
I.e. if the flow is wired
Try/Catch -> FlowOrder-1->Throw
then FlowOrder-2-> will never run, just Catch of try/catch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| francoisvdm |
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 09 Aug 2001
Posts: 332
|
I've tried a few days ago with try/catch just after the floworder node.... so I guess it will work if you put it just before the floworder node...but then exceptions gets logged ... I'll play and see if I like it.
Thanks
_________________
If you do not know the answer or you get the urge to answer with "RTFM" or "Search better in this forum", please refrain from doing so, just move on to the next question. Much appreciated.
Francois van der Merwe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Herbert |
| Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 146
Location: Leersum, The Netherlands
|
| francoisvdm wrote: |
| yes...true....but that sounds a bit "not clean"...but hey, if that is the only way..... |
Is the filter node not a better way then a floworder if you want to do conditional processing?
part 1 of the flow => Filter node => part 2 of the flow
Or if you want to use Order node to have the original message at the Second Terminal, then juist start with a Filter node after the Second terminal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
