RE: WDDX for Cobol

2001-01-10 Thread Robert Everland
Well if you have Client access to connect to the AS/400 and it's using an offshoot of DB2 somewhere which AS/400 usually uses, you should be able to query the database with an odbc connection. We do this now with AS/400 and RPG. Robert Everland III Web Developer Dixon Ticonderoga -Original

RE: WDDX for Cobol

2001-01-10 Thread Simon Horwith
I've not heard of this, but one thing you might want to do is either write or search for a java class to do this. If your OS400 version is less than 5 years old, then it should have a local JVM that you could interface with. Java has excellent XML parsing capabilities, and would be the ideal cand

Re: WDDX for Cobol

2001-01-10 Thread David E. Crawford
Java just aren't what they are in CF. DC - Original Message - From: "Robert Everland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:04 Subject: RE: WDDX for Cobol > Well if you have Client access to

RE: WDDX for Cobol

2001-01-10 Thread Russel Madere
bear eats you. > -Original Message- > From: Robert Everland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 09:05 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: WDDX for Cobol > > > Well if you have Client a

RE: WDDX for Cobol

2001-01-10 Thread Robert Everland
EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:24 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: WDDX for Cobol There is also an ODBC drive for NT To directly pass ODBC commands to a DB2 database by a company called Hit Software (http://www.hit.com). It is easy to set up and then appears to Cold Fusion lik

RE: WDDX for Cobol

2001-01-10 Thread Russel Madere
Some days you eat the bear; some days the bear eats you. > -Original Message- > From: Robert Everland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 09:37 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: WDDX for Cob

RE: WDDX for Cobol

2001-01-10 Thread JustinMacCarthy
ay, January 10, 2001 3:10 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: Re: WDDX for Cobol > > >In production we will not have ODBC connectivity to the database, but will >only be calling a stored procedure which executes a COBOL routine. Right >now I am getting a huge string back, delimited by the