[Jim Kosloskey]

One thing to do is to check with the vendor to see if they have any customers using Cloverleaf to integrate. If they do, get a contact person at that customer site and pick their brains.

Given the spec, I still think this can be done in Cloverleaf which will provide management and monitoring benefits if it is accomplished. I think PDL will be needed, however.

A challenge may be defining the message structure as it is not a standard. You may need a combination of HRL with VRL.

I would not get thrown by the vendor wanting to be the Server when initiating transactions, that is not a showstopper – I have done that many times within Cloverleaf without issue (if everybody plays the game right).

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

I think this could be done. There will be challenges as pointed out by others. Since no HL/7 acknowledgments are being used, you might HAVE to use PDL but if you can figure out a way to do it without PDL I think you might be better off.

While not the same, I did something like this way back in an earlier release of CL. If you are on a later release (you do not mention the release), you may find the TCP/IP ‘Encapsulated Options’ in properties might be able to help.

Since each Cloverleaf thread has an inbound and outbound side, a thread can indeed be bi-directional.

Will the system in question be acting as a client or server?

A big challenge will be if they cannot reliably flip their connection from send to receive in synch with the arrival rates. It is possible you may see periodic (or consistent) pending messages but message flow still progressing. That would be a support issue in that someone may erroneously assume the thread is stuck. Consider how you will handle that situation so you can recognize the thread is definitely stuck and not simply obstructed by the other system’s handling of send/receive modes.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

I am assuming you want to strip out some text from the OBX-5 field and place that in OBX-6. I will assume by your example, the text can vary in length and content. If that is true, then you need some sort of ‘anchor’ I think.

For example, if the text always began or ended with something you can count on, or the following text always began a certain way, or there are a predictable number of spaces, or it starts the text for a specific length. That knowledge will help construct a reliable solution.

BTW – shameful plug – I have a package that goes into a lot of detail regarding the STRING Action Functions and includes some additional functions I have written. You can have a copy if you email me (email in signature).

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

FWIW attached are my notes guiding me drilling down into the Xlate Info from NCI. Very crude notes at this point but might be useful. Eventually, my intent is to produce some more polished level of documentation as well as a hopefully useful proc for extracting NetConfig Info.

As you will see (and this is indicated in CL Help) the NCI only takes you so far and then you need to understand the structure of the various lists and keyed lists. There is no documentation for those and I would not expect to ever see documentation distributed. That would make reverse engineering by competitors less painful.

The caution I see is what if we code to those structures and in a future release the structure is altered. How will we be protected or won’t we? Another Challenge for INFOR.

• This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by Jim Kosloskey.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Basically in more current releases, the NCI is intended for Integration Engineers to query (query only) instead of tclib stuff.

I have started constructing a Tcl proc to exploit NCI hopefully to its current capability. Certain data retrieval requires understanding the lists, list of lists, list of keyed lists, and lists inside keyed lists. As I discover those, I am producing a result of my findings which I hope to make available to the group.

I am concerned the reliance on still understanding the underlying structure may present an opportunity for Cloverleaf to change that structure, so the engine still works but direct retrieval (after the NCI call) nay break.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Ditto – but it is one of those things that is so painful you NEVER forget the experience. 🙂

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

I am assuming you are exporting the spreadsheet to a csv file then running that for conversion. I have a proc that works if you would like that but like Jason says a likely culprit is a duplicate in the left column if the table is one-way or column if it is a 2-way table.

I would see if you have a tool that will check the file first for duplicates and have that let you know where duplicates exist rather than just unilaterally eliminating duplicates (how do you know which dupe should remain otherwise?).

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

I want to make sure everyone understands the difference between the SEND and the CONTINUE Actions in the Xlate.

The SEND sends the message directly to the Destination Thread bypassing post Xlate processing between the Xlate and the Destination thread.

CONTINUE passes the message on to the next state in the engine (typically the post Xlate UPoC).

I recommend the use of the CONTINUE UNLESS you are sure there will not be any post Xlate processing. What can happen (has happened to me) is you have an Xlate running well (perhaps for years and maybe you did not even create it, with a SEND), then a requirement comes along that is best solved with the post Xlate UPoC. You create and test your code; then place it in the UPOC. But it does not seem to function. Bounce head against wall and burn up valuable hours until you discover the SEND which (of course) is bypassing the post Xlate Proc.

I submit with today’s Xlate power and chaining, it is rare a SEND is needed and indeed can get in the way later on.

Understand as well that the Xlate will always create a message UNLESS the SUPPRESS Action is used so in many cases the CONTINUE can cause multiple messages to be generated.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by Jim Kosloskey. Reason: Add comments about automatic Xlate message generation

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

If I were to do this in an Xlate see attached.

First, I would ITERATE over the element in question (in our case the OBX segment in my case the OBX Group – no real difference.

Inside that ITERATE I would Check to see if any repetition OBX-3.1 is PDFReport. If it is set the SUPPRESS switch, then BREAK because we don’t need to keep checking.

ELSE
Do whatever is needed to build the message. No need for CONTINUE or SEND as the Xlate will always create one message outbound – in this case the one you build inside the ELSE.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

You are correct in that there may only be a portion of what you want initially (maybe ever) and indeed to expand the scope will be an effort, but this is a start and at least it is a start. Thanks for adding your input.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Although Site Doc is not really the topic here, might I suggest Infor is looking for suggestions about Site Doc at this link:

https://clovertech.infor.com/forums/topic/user-research-survey-cloverleaf-ide-site-documentation-tool-usage/

Since this seems to be a start to try to improve documentation, starting with this survey may begin the discussion to expansion of the documentation tools to be developed.

 

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

The idea for the \T\ is the receiving system should revert that back to an & if it is following the HL/7 standard. So, you see it as the \T\ in the message you send and then the receiving system changes that back to &.

Try that and see if the receiving system behaves properly. If not, let us know.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Sorry to hear that.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

Thank you, but not brilliant, I just have bashed my head against the same wall before. Now get upgraded!!

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Jim Kosloskey]

If it worked in the testing tool, it should work in the engine assuming you are executing the same Xlate in the engine as you are testing. This is something you might have already checked but make sure the Xlate you are testing is in the same site as the engine is running.

As for the code, I would need to see more to assist should you be executing the same Xlate you are testing. If you would like to do a desktop sharing session where I can help, email me.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 61 years IT – old fart.

[Author]

Replies