Hi. If all you need is to set global nodes on a remote instance, then you could just set it up as a remote database and namespace and use Extended Global References to access it. No need to run code on the remote system. Or have I missed something?

We still have green-screen parts of the app, so interested in the answer. And is there a way to tie the Windows command app into running cache? (I know very little about Windows.). Thanks.


I don't want to achieve anything else, it's just that "cache being cache" there's often another way to do the same thing and it might be easier. :-) 



I recently needed a temporary class (not just a table) to store data while it was manipulated (imported, queried, modified, etc. and eventually exported) . I eventually set up all the storage locations with PPG refs as noted above, which works, but did wonder if there was a class parameter I had missed that just indicated the extent was temporary. Or maybe an alternative to extending %Persistent?


Hi Stuart,

As others have said, it's best practice to build a new variable, rather than amending what you have (there's some fancy name for the rule, I think, or maybe just "functional programming").

Looking at the string, I assume it is HealthShare HL7 message format, so the contents are pretty limited. In which case maybe a shortcut could be used:

s out=$Replace($Replace(list,"~]",""),"~[","")

Here's another alternative:

w $ZSTRIP($ZSTRIP(list,"*","[]"),"=>P")

I admit it could go horribly wrong with multiple nesting (I don't remember all the possible formats), so needs some testing. 

Hope you're keeping well,


Sadly, in my team we've all been writing MUMPS for so long that the abbreviated style comes naturally and is a hard habit to break. Yes, expanded is better for new starters in the language.

However... Playing devil's advocate you could say that abbreviated commands are:

1. Faster to type (as you said).

2. More compact. Allowing the reader to "see" more of the structure in one go.

You see, you can expand things out too much, in my opinion. Also, it only takes a few minutes for a (reasonable) programmer to get that "S" means "set", "I" means "if", etc. Commands always appear in the same part of the code (unlike some languages), there are not that many to learn, and once you know them, you can read them! So why bother with extra letters? After all "set" is itself only a token for "put the value on the right of the = into the variable on the left" or something like that. It could be "make" or "update" or "<-" (look up the programming language "APL" on Wikipedia if you want a real scare).

I think the main problem with "old fashioned" code is usually poor label/variable names, squeezing too much on one line, and lack of indenting. It's hard to read mainly because of the other parts of the code, not because the commands are single characters. Some things should be longer to better convey what they are for (though not as long as COBOL), and more lines can help convey program structure.

While I'm here, I'm not that keen on spurious spaces in "set x = 1", as opposed to "set x=1". It just spreads out the important stuff  - spaces are there to split out the commands.  :-) 


Hi. It depends on what you mean by "certain criteria". If it's a special file name then you could amend the FileSpec  property to skip the ones you don't want yet. If it's in the content, then maybe you should be reading in the file (creating a copy or allowing archive so the original continues to exist) and sending it as a message into Ensemble that can then  be held up in a business process until ready to send out to an Operation that creates an output file. That is the way ensemble is supposed to work, so you get a full record of what happened, etc.

(Otherwise, I'm pretty certain that there are actions that reset the list of processed files - maybe resetting that file path or restarting the job - but I cannot find the documentation about it at the moment. )


Recently, well yesterday, I needed to do exactly the same , and on a class property as well! I found an answer more by accident than design:

s data=$LB(1,2,3)

s data=$LI(data,1,*-1)

zw data

When I saw the other answer, I worried that this might not work when the result is only one item, but it does, as confirmed by the documentation for the $LIST function. If you supply all three parameters - list, position, end - then it always returns another list. I was pleasantly surprised!


Hi / It sounds like a good idea! I can think of a number of interfaces I've seen where the target application - a small local system - struggled to keep up with the flow of updates from a large PAS.

The only thing I've done like it was complicated, and had to use a proper Business Process. In that case the "department" was neonatal, so we were only interested in patients admitted to a particular ward. The solution looked for HL7 admissions and transfers to that ward, and when found used the data to create a local record in Caché. Then all other types of message could be checked against those records to see if it needed further processing and passing on (to "BadgerNet" eventually when a full episode was built up). Of course this only works if you can define a clear "starting point" that can be spotted in the message stream.                        / Mike

Hi. The "clean code" people would recommend just one parameter max, and better would be none! But I think that's going a bit far, and agree that 3, or maybe 4, maximum should be aimed for to keep things easy to understand when reading, though there may be exceptions.

The array passing is a good idea to reduce the number for normal routines, but I think the ideal for classes is using objects. If you are truly embracing objects, and self-documenting code, then new classes are usually needed and what used to be parameters become the setting of properties, like this:



It works well in some cases, but I have to admit that there is a tendency for the number of classes to get a bit silly if you take it to the extreme. Sometimes simple code is best.  :-)     / Mike