My client’s main user interface is a PowerBuilder application using MQ to communicate with mainframe DB2. A sub-group of these users also work with a separate web-interfaced LN database to manages a specialized business process (the LN database currently has no external database connectivity.)
My task is to pass DB2 data into a newly created document of the LN database to minimize data entry for the users. The requirement is that the user will have to manually enter no more than one key field of data, which shall then be used to retrieve the data for the remaining fields (about six.) And the assumption is that the DB2 data has already been retrieved by the PowerBuilder application, since it is the main user interface.
The initial recommendation was to incorporate an MQ solution into the LN database to call the existing mainframe service manager that the PowerBuilder application uses. This is certainly an acceptable solution, but two drawbacks (although minor) come to mind:
Data entry will still be required by the user to populate at least one key field before the service manager can be called, and
This will result in the service manager being called twice. (sloppy. yuck.)
My ideal solution would be to pass the available data from the PowerBuilder app to the LN database and skip the whole step of incorporating MQ into LN. A similar function already exists in the main user application that allows PowerBuilder to pass data to another web-based specialty application (not LN) but that application is COTS and I do not have access to the .dll source code to answer a lot of my questions.
So, here is my dilemna - get data from PowerBuilder to a LN database.
Subject: RE: Brainstorming connectivity between PowerBuilder and LN - care to join me?
Yes, I can use ODBC to retrieve the data from DB2, but I was hoping to have PB pass the data to LN and avoid the extra DB2 call. That’s what I’m fuzzy on - if this is even possible and how to configure the interface.
Subject: RE: Brainstorming connectivity between PowerBuilder and LN - care to join me?
it might be I am a PB neophyte …
(unless were talking Peanut Butter 1.3a, then I have more experience than required!!)
But, it seems to me that if the end result is to have data in notes, I would want to code everything in notes so I can follow any rules I plan to enforce in notes…
For example, my thought process would be:
pick up some DB2 data (As raw and plentiful as possible) …
Massage and manipulate the data, Create the Notes Documents I want to reflect that data and save it (Maybe each record is one NotesDocument, maybe it’s more…
Loop through all DB2 data until I move all of the data I want to move
While the coding might me a little long winded (I am famous for running my yap beyond my allotted time limit…)
I think in the long run it will be more straight forward.
You may be able to leverage EI and not have to write any code at all depending on what you are trying to do.
Subject: RE: Brainstorming connectivity between PowerBuilder and LN - care to join me?
It seems like any way I look at it, I am going to have to find a way to get PowerBuilder (or Peanut Butter to talk to LN. The Notes DB2 connection is going to require user authentication, so if user login data is not passed from PB to LN additional sign on steps are going to be needed. The user group is not going to accept that. If only the mainframe authentication was included in the SSO process… but it’s not.
Up to this point, I have not had to learn the intricacies of MQ, but I think my answer may lie somewhere in there. PB gets/puts DB2 data to/from an MQ queue, so maybe some kind of queue manager can be created that PB and LN can subscribe to. I am now haunting the WebSphere pages to see what I can learn. Thankfully, the existing MQ driver/tran driver/service manager/services for the mainframe DB2 are in place and generic enough.
to talk to LN. The Notes DB2 connection is going to require user authentication, so if user login data is not passed from PB to LN additional sign on steps are going to be needed. The user group is not going to accept that. If only the mainframe authentication was included in the SSO process… but it’s not.