| Author |
Message
|
| mqceries |
 Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:55 am Post subject: IIB9 How to retain Quotes from the values read from Database |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 02 Dec 2011
Posts: 70
|
Hi,
We have a situation where we are reading data from oracle table and doing mapping and populating to a File through FTP. We apply a message set on the data retrieved from the database, do mapping and apply another layer of message set for generating the File.
Our requirement needs to read values in the field of table containing quotes (") and retain them in the output file as it is. and over that we are applying group terminator and group initiator to add quotes to every field in the output file.
Ex: table field value : 1bcd
output field value: "1bcd"
This we added group properties..
But for some reason Message sets are ignoring quotes when reading from the data base
Table field value : "1bcd"
This should become : ""1bcd"" in output file..
Strangely message broker is trimming the quotes when they are appearing begininng and ending of the fields.. say "1bcd" from the database when it comes to mapping the value is only 1bcd.
We were told that quotes are expected in middle of the field values too say 1b"cd or 1b"c"d and we should retain them.. Broker was throwing error saying there is a quote in middle of the value. We are using TDS layer for parsing the input data.
I read the infocenter and used a Escape sequence and Reserved charector to preserve the quote- obviously we are trying to minimise coding and implement logic at message set level and the following is the output
Reserved Character : "
Escape character : / this we have applied on Character Data settings on mset properties..for a TDS layer..
and now the output became this for
/"618M DEP FOR /"IMAGERUNNER 7105/" - Value i kept in database Field
"/"618M DEP FOR /"IMAGERUNNER 7105/"" - The Output
and told the other team to treat / as escape charector.. kindly please help if there any way that i can retain quotes.. and not using any escape charector even i use one..how to make sure it wont appear in output with out coding.
To use the above logic.. i have to ask database team to add escape character and other team also to treat / as escape character.
Thanks,
Wy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Don't use TDS/MRM.
Use DFDL.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqceries |
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 02 Dec 2011
Posts: 70
|
| Thank you Jeff, DFDL is out of box, we have to change a lot of things. Kindly please suggest an alternate with MRM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| mqceries wrote: |
| Thank you Jeff, DFDL is out of box, we have to change a lot of things. Kindly please suggest an alternate with MRM. |
Not sure what you mean by "out of box".
The DFDL csv template should do a lot of the work for you... although timber may disagree...
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqceries |
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 02 Dec 2011
Posts: 70
|
| our frame work and all not yet tuned for DFDL.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqceries wrote: |
| our frame work and all not yet tuned for DFDL.. |
What do you need to "tune" for DFDL? 
It's just a different message domain with better capabilities than MRM and lower resource requirements. You don't need to change a thing except to use it.
One of the "better capabilities" is to do what you need more easily.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqceries |
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 02 Dec 2011
Posts: 70
|
i do all respect and appreciate for pushing DFDL.. i have used it in the past when working for a different client..
I Kindly request you guys to please suggest me an alternative to DFDL.. Thanks a lot.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| timber |
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 1292
|
DFDL allows you to define your own 'Escape scheme'.
See section 13.2.1 of this:
http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSMKHH_10.0.0/com.ibm.dfdl.spec.doc/dfdl_index.htm
| Quote: |
i do all respect and appreciate for pushing DFDL.. i have used it in the past when working for a different client..
I Kindly request you guys to please suggest me an alternative to DFDL. |
You could write yourself a parser and/or a serializer in Java or ESQL?
But why not DFDL? You may have good reasons for not wanting to use DFDL, but you have not explained them here. You could start by explaining this comment:
| Quote: |
| DFDL is out of box, we have to change a lot of things |
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
I have experienced some clients where the IIB Developers are only allowed to use certain components and thus functionality of the product. Sometimes this list have not changed in years and WBI/IIB Versions.
Some years ago, I interviewed for a job where this enforced. The Architects had decided that it wouls be MRM or nothing back in the days before DFDL. No amount of pleading would get them to even reconsider the limits. For me it was that I had to use HTTP nodes for all SOAP operations even though the SOAP nodes were available.
I lasted a week before moving on.
If the OP says that DFDL is not allowed then I would believe them having experienced this sort of thing myself.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| adubya |
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 377
Location: GU12, UK
|
DFDL in v8 is very poor IMO, luckily v8 is approaching end of support !
I'm working for a customer still using WMB v8 and we've had lots of issues with DFDL and have had to move to alternative parsing strategies due to poor performance. IIB 9/10 DFDL implementations are much better,
_________________
Independent Middleware Consultant
andy@knownentity.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
I am sure "timber", as one of the IBM DFDL developers, could give you some advice on performance, if you post an example of the issue.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
