- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
Is anyone taking phone extensions into account and removing them. I have an old tcl that removed them but now that the sending app is sending multiple subfields, the tcl proc is failing to do what it originally was intended to do. If anyone is still doing this are you using tcl, Xlate, tcl code in Xlate? Thanx!
-
Replies
-
-
Tim,
Is the sending Application now using the Extended Telephone Number Data Type in HL/7 (each piece of the phone number has its own component including extension)?
If so and you have an Xlate, just COPY the components you need (or don’t need) to the component or components the receiving system needs.
If all you want to do is remove the extension and the extension is in a separate component, then no tcl should be necessary.
If there is more to it than that let us know.
email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 29+ years Cloverleaf, 59 years IT - old fart.
-
-
Tim,
Just look at the inbound SMAT and analyze a telephone number. If it is broken into components – you are set.
By the way, it is my opinion that the vendor should be required to republish their HL/7 specification of they are changing anything and give sufficient notice to their customer base.
That may not be all that is changed – you probably should do an impact analysis.
email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 29+ years Cloverleaf, 59 years IT - old fart.
-
- The forum ‘Cloverleaf’ is closed to new topics and replies.
