xMII 12.0 SP2 message rules issues

[Former Member]

I'm running xMII 12.0 SP2 on NW 7.0 SP13 and I have some questions and comments.

1. In the Message Processing Rules - Parameters section, what does the "Value" mean? And why does it have to be set to "ReceivedMessageXML" for the "Name" checkbox to remain checked? Is this some internal xMII parameter name which the message processor uses to map the input parameter? It it must be "ReceivedMessageXML" why have it at all? Are there other valid Values?

2. Also in Message Processing Rules, there are some strange browser issues. In IE 7, if you create a new Rule all the fields are cleared and server name defaults to the first choice in the combo. If you look at the Message Type radio buttons, the IDOC button is missing. You have to select a transaction before the button appears. This doesn't occur in Firefox 2.0

3. Still in Message Processing Rules with Firefox 2.0, when you click "New" rule, the category/transaction fields remain from the previous rule (depending on whether the previous rule was a category or transaction type rule). In IE 7, clicking "New" clears those fields.

4. There's a browser issues in the portal too. It works fine in IE 7, which is likely the officially supported browser, but in Firefox 2.0, the the top level portal items cannot be expanded to show their contents. I'm guessing Firefox is not a supported browser...

5. We ran the latest migration tool against our 11.5 code - approximately 70 transactions, a couple dozen irpts, javascript, images, 100 or so query templates and a smattering of display templates and it worked flawlessly. I noticed that the migrated IDOC listener rules are named "Rule 1", "Rule 2", etc. However, you cannot save rules with spaces in their names. Is this intentional? We copied/renamed them all anyway to match our naming scheme.

6. Does the xMII Best Practices document address naming conventions of some of these new xMII 12.0 features? e.g. should message rule names have the company name as a prefix such as "Visiprise_DMO100_MATMAS"?

Thanks much!

-tim

[salvatore_castro · Accepted solution]

Tim,

With regards to posting comment #6, there are no specific naming convention recommendations pertaining to the message listeners in general for v12. The only thing to consider for these is common sense, you don't want to give it an ambiguous name and you don't want to call the listener and rule the same thing but you do want their names to be related. Also be sure to include verbose descriptions of each component.

Pretty sure that this is what you would do anyway but wanted to make it clear for others reading this post.

Sam