if you look at the msg about checking for duplicates in the user ML you can see that any thing that will take longer will eventually clogs the system. Most of my clients have hundreds of emails from shippers (fulfillment/dropshippers) and suppliers about status of drop ship inventory. So I would like to make the process as efficient as possible but having the mca get to the correct parsing.
BJ Freeman sent the following on 9/30/2008 1:23 PM: > routines are in java. and meant to parse the email. they never get put > in the communications event. > > Adrian Crum sent the following on 9/30/2008 1:13 PM: >> What are the processes written in? Are they services? If yes, then you >> could set up a service group and have the email go from service to >> service - each service acting on the email accordingly. >> >> -Adrian >> >> BJ Freeman wrote: >>> thanks >>> but I have many processes that are based on the email subject and or >>> sender. Fedex notification, UPS Notifications, Order of different formats >>> Import routies, etc. >>> would like to do this in the mca so I don't have to write this in java >>> code then do the same thing. >>> >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 9/30/2008 12:47 PM: >>>> The way I handled it here was to have a simpler condition that sent the >>>> email into a processor that did additional evaluations on the email. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>> if seemed pretty simple to add the conditionals. >>>>> but looking a the decision tree it looks like is an or'ed condition. >>>>> if I have two condition for the same header or field and one of them is >>>>> true then they will all be true. >>>>> >>>>> The question is, is expanding the conditions to accept and and or >>>>> condition acceptable. this would include a grouping of each condition >>>>> like in an If statement. >>>>> >>>>> rationale: >>>>> a lot of emails have parts of a field or header that needs to be looked >>>>> at. for instance >>>>> subject: order #13950 from yst-1309 >>>>> to parse you want >>>>> [contain order >>>>> and >>>>> contain yst] >>>>> or >>>>> not-contain Re: >>>>> >>>>> BTW any hints on how to define a group of condition in the xsd would >>>>> help. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > > >
