Author |
Message
|
Vitor |
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
Esa wrote: |
somehow I get the impression that it could be a risky choice if you are planning to run the next platform for, say, 6 to 10 years. |
How do you get that impression? How do you arrive at the 6 - 10 year timescale for your new platform?
[/quote]
One could argue from that link DFDL inherits from MRM. In terms of timing & when DFDL got started it's equally questionable who inherited from whom...
smdavies99 wrote: |
Given that it took IBM a really long time to get rid of the old Neon rules and formatter, I'd say that the MRM parser will be around for more years that I have to go before I retire |
Every v9 session at IMPACT it's been made clear (in the face of a certain level of hysteria & panic from some audiences) that DFDL extends the product & there are no plans to remove / depreciate / eliminate the MRM message domain.
Esa wrote: |
Unfortunately it didn't take long to find out that there is no ready made EDI solution for message broker - other than WTX. |
Until customer pressure causes the nice people in Dublin to produce DFDL format layouts as they do for MRM, or customer pressure causes IBM to produce x where x is another solution for handling this. @mapa I'm talking to you as well. You want this, tell IBM.
For the record, I'm in the same sort of WMB / WTX / EDI position so we're all "voting" for the same thing. If anyone else is "voting" _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mapa |
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 09 Aug 2001 Posts: 257 Location: Malmö, Sweden
|
Last time I talked to IBM about this was in 2007/2008 but then they kept referring to WTX since it has EDI suppport and claiming it would be the standard translating component that would be used in all IBM WebSphere products...
(Maybe I talked to the wrong persons at that time.)
Not sure how to do it, is it to create a RFE?
UN/Cefact publishes downloadable text-files for all EDIFACT directories published since 1988.
That is what the development team for the now legacy EDI broker AMTrix used since early 1990 to automatically create new "MessageSets" (called something else in their product) so it should be doable...(Probably what they still use in the successor product).
Update: I also checked what Smooks uses for their generation of new EDIFACT artifacts and they use those downloadable directory zip-files.
https://github.com/smooks/unedifact |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mqjeff |
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008 Posts: 17447
|
2007's future direction is clearly not 2013's future direction, nor 2013's reality.
If you want to create an RFE, go here.
Again, it depends entirely on what one means by "EDI" and "Support" and "Solution" as to what one can and can't do in Broker v8 *today*.
And that's not remotely the same as future plans.
I suspect that Hursley is well aware of requirements in this area already.
At some point, it stops being an "EDI Solution" and starts being a "business-specific application engine". If you don't know where that line is, you probably want to start by building the second rather than buying the first. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mapa |
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 09 Aug 2001 Posts: 257 Location: Malmö, Sweden
|
Personally I would be satisfied with having predefined MessageSets or DFDL for EDIFACT and ANSI X.12 so that the broker/bus can do message transformations. In an EDI solution there are clearly more things that needs to happen, like TPM (Trading Partner Management) etc. but there are B2B solutions that has good support for this already where they act as Gateways instead of also doing message transformations.
Yes, I know how to create RFE, wasn't sure if this was a candidate for it since it feels a bit late to do it now in 2013?
Currently (as in last couple of years) EDI transformations is handled by B2B solutions like IBM DataPower or IBM Sterling B2B (or B2B software from other vendors) at customers that I work for. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mqjeff |
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008 Posts: 17447
|
Right, so there aren't currently predefined EDIFACT messages available as DFDL schemas.
DFDL should have all the support needed to create them, today.
It's always a good idea to create an RFE, even if it ends up being a duplicate. At a minimum it provides further validation to the lab about their understanding of what customers are trying to do. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lancelotlinc |
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 Posts: 4941 Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esa |
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 22 May 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Finland
|
mapa wrote: |
Personally I would be satisfied with having predefined MessageSets or DFDL for EDIFACT and ANSI X.12 so that the broker/bus can do message transformations. In an EDI solution there are clearly more things that needs to happen, like TPM (Trading Partner Management) etc. but there are B2B solutions that has good support for this already where they act as Gateways instead of also doing message transformations. |
I agree.
mapa wrote: |
Yes, I know how to create RFE, wasn't sure if this was a candidate for it since it feels a bit late to do it now in 2013?
Currently (as in last couple of years) EDI transformations is handled by B2B solutions like IBM DataPower or IBM Sterling B2B (or B2B software from other vendors) at customers that I work for. |
At least a couple of years ago IBM said that Sterling mapper was planned to be replaced by --- WTX! My client wanted to skip one migration and chose WTX directly.
And I agree with lancelotlinc: it's an architectural decision to do all transformations on ESB. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kimbert |
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 Posts: 5542 Location: Southampton
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
shanson |
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 Posts: 344 Location: IBM Hursley
|
mqjeff wrote: |
It's always a good idea to create an RFE, even if it ends up being a duplicate. At a minimum it provides further validation to the lab about their understanding of what customers are trying to do. |
Plus the new RFE system allows users to vote on RFEs, so they get a weighting. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esa |
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 22 May 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Finland
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vitor |
Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
Once again @kimbert brings up the essential point. DFDL is an open standard so the production of X12 & EDI schemas isn't entirely the province of IBM as it was with MRM. Someone just needs to do it....
I also agree with @lancelotlinc (Dear Diary...). There's much more to this than the flat parsing of the messages into a processable format. _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Michael Dag |
Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002 Posts: 2602 Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
Vitor wrote: |
Once again @kimbert brings up the essential point. DFDL is an open standard so the production of X12 & EDI schemas isn't entirely the province of IBM as it was with MRM. Someone just needs to do it.... |
isn't this more then about MRM to DFDL conversion? Should IBM come up with one? So existing MRM datadefinitions bought like Swift/X12/EDI can be re-used in the 'new' way too?
my 2 cents _________________ Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esa |
Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 22 May 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Finland
|
Vitor wrote: |
Once again @kimbert brings up the essential point. DFDL is an open standard so the production of X12 & EDI schemas isn't entirely the province of IBM as it was with MRM. Someone just needs to do it....
|
Ah, crowdsourcing
Last edited by Esa on Fri May 03, 2013 7:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
smdavies99 |
Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003 Posts: 6076 Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
Esa wrote: |
So if IBM ever comes up with something themselves, it will be a message set?
|
There are no Messages set with DFDL only schemas. _________________ 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 |
|
|
Esa |
Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 22 May 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Finland
|
smdavies99 wrote: |
Esa wrote: |
So if IBM ever comes up with something themselves, it will be a message set?
|
There are no Messages set with DFDL only schemas. |
I wasn't quick enough to edit that away, after all...
What I meant is that because DFDL schemas could be run with any DFDL implementations - even open source, I suspected that if IBM produces something to help us parse EDIFACT messages, it is more likely going to be an MRM message set than DFDL schemas.
But I took that back. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|