Skip to Content

Usage of Dynamic Configuration in Synchronous Scenarios

              In this blog, I just want to share how dynamic configuration can be used in synchronous scenarios. This might be useful especially in BPM scenarios where we might need to send synchronous system response along with the some or whole request fields to some other business system. So we can avoid extra transformation step. This will improve the overall performance.

                        As usual for BPM sender we need one Synchronous abstract interface and for the Synchronous business system we require synchronous inbound interface.

      Synchronous Abstract Interface:
                O/P Message: RequestMessage_BPM_MT
                I/P Message: CustomResponseMessageAlongwithReqFields_MT
      Synchronous Inbound Interface:
                I/P Message: RequestMessage_MT
                O/P Message: ResponseMessage_MT

                   So in the request message mapping (outside BPM), use the following generic Dynamic configuration UDF code to preserve the required fields along with the count. The count will be very useful while retrieving the field values from Dynamic Configuration header in the response message mapping. So, here I am providing the very basic code stuff for both storing and retrieving field values. You can extend this logic according to your requirements. 

UDFToStoreValuesAsDC (Should be used in synchronous request message mapping)

UDFToGetValuesFromDC (Should be used in synchronous response message mapping)

MONI Screen shot for Dynamic Configuration Header


You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.
  • Hi Praveen,

    Nice blog. I have used this feture in couple of my projects before and it works well.

    I am curious to know whats the maximum number of key fields that the Dynamic Config can take. Is it advisable to have lot of such keys in the header or restrcict to fewer ones, say 1-5 fields.

    Sudharshan N A

    • Thanks sudarshan……………
      I tried this for 3 fields with 300 values and it worked fine. Generally it should work for n no of fields.


      • Hello Praveen,

        I am trying to use the same logic in ICO but i am getting some error. I have noticed that in response message mapping i can’t able to access the custom namespace value while using ICO. However, if i work with classical scenario approach using SA, RD, ID etc. i am getting the custom value back which i have set in the request mapping. I have raised a thread also:

        My question is can i use the above approach in ICOs? Please confirm.