Search found 635 matches
- Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:15 pm
- Forum: JDBCR4
- Topic: QRNXUTIL _QRNI_getJNIEnv Pointer not set for location referenced
- Replies: 5
- Views: 297
Re: QRNXUTIL _QRNI_getJNIEnv Pointer not set for location referenced
I've mostly run into problems with 65535 when working with "regular" embedded SQL rather than JDBC. (And yes, having QCCSID set to 65535 and the calculated 'default' CCSID set to 37 is the exact circumstance under which you will run into them.) Note that this doesn't have to be fixed syste...
- Thu Feb 15, 2024 6:12 am
- Forum: JDBCR4
- Topic: QRNXUTIL _QRNI_getJNIEnv Pointer not set for location referenced
- Replies: 5
- Views: 297
Re: QRNXUTIL _QRNI_getJNIEnv Pointer not set for location referenced
Could you have it set in a QIBM_RPG_JAVA_PROPERTIES environment variable, maybe?
- Thu Feb 15, 2024 5:24 am
- Forum: JDBCR4
- Topic: QRNXUTIL _QRNI_getJNIEnv Pointer not set for location referenced
- Replies: 5
- Views: 297
Re: QRNXUTIL _QRNI_getJNIEnv Pointer not set for location referenced
As far as I can tell from your message, the error is "JVMJ9VM007E Command-line option unrecognised: -Djava.compiler=NONE
Unable to create Java Virtual Machine"
JDBCR4 doesn't set that option. You'll need to figure out what is setting it, and change it so that it's not being set.
Unable to create Java Virtual Machine"
JDBCR4 doesn't set that option. You'll need to figure out what is setting it, and change it so that it's not being set.
- Thu Feb 15, 2024 5:18 am
- Forum: HSSFR4
- Topic: ss_open_object_group
- Replies: 1
- Views: 148
Re: ss_open_object_group
I'm not familiar with ss_open_object_group or ss_close. Can you explain what they do? Are they similar to ss_begin_object_group and ss_end_object_group? Perhaps you created your own similar tool? ss_begin_object_group and ss_end_object_group merely tell Java that your program is done with the refere...
- Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:57 pm
- Forum: FTPAPI
- Topic: NAMEFMT 1 - 500 Subcommand NAME not valid
- Replies: 7
- Views: 1955
Re: NAMEFMT 1 - 500 Subcommand NAME not valid
I'm very familiar with the difference, Cinzia.
Please understand that not every software package in the world works the same way.
IBM's FTP is *NOT* the same thing as FTPAPI. FTPAPI works differently.
Please understand that not every software package in the world works the same way.
IBM's FTP is *NOT* the same thing as FTPAPI. FTPAPI works differently.
- Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:48 pm
- Forum: HTTPAPI
- Topic: cookie_dump
- Replies: 1
- Views: 278
Re: cookie_dump
Recently, we brought a high-volume HTTPAPI application to production. We're now in the process of monitoring for errors and performance issues. We're using cookies and a cookie file to store a session cookie. I noticed, that every API call we do results in an update of the cookie file. Correct, thi...
- Mon Feb 05, 2024 6:58 pm
- Forum: FTPAPI
- Topic: NAMEFMT 1 - 500 Subcommand NAME not valid
- Replies: 7
- Views: 1955
Re: NAMEFMT 1 - 500 Subcommand NAME not valid
There is no need to change FTPAPI to be in NAMEFMT 1, it is always in NAMEFMT 1. (It doesn't understand NAMEFMT 0) The 'NAMEFMT' command that you type in the IBM FTP client is not sent to the server (which is what you're trying to do.) Instead, it sees the command and changes the client's behavior t...
- Fri Feb 02, 2024 6:47 pm
- Forum: YAJL-ILE
- Topic: DATA-INTO to parse json response
- Replies: 3
- Views: 1231
Re: DATA-INTO to parse json response
Please use code tags.
Please don't ever post "I get an error" unless that is followed by what the error actually says.
Please don't ever post "I get an error" unless that is followed by what the error actually says.
- Fri Feb 02, 2024 5:49 pm
- Forum: FTPAPI
- Topic: NAMEFMT 1 - 500 Subcommand NAME not valid
- Replies: 7
- Views: 1955
Re: NAMEFMT 1 - 500 Subcommand NAME not valid
What are you expecting to happen when you run 'NAMEFMT 1' without SITE in front of it?
- Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:23 pm
- Forum: HTTPAPI
- Topic: HTTP client transport supports binary payloads (backward compatibility)
- Replies: 1
- Views: 1072
Re: HTTP client transport supports binary payloads (backward compatibility)
Can you explain what you mean by "change this default behavior... at the system-wide level"? It seems to me that it's already changed at the system-wide level. Can you explain what problems it causes you? I'm not seeing why it would cause problems. Also, why are you asking this in the HTTP...