| Author |
Message
|
| xgr3 |
 Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 5:44 pm Post subject: Pub Sub without JMS - is it possible ??? |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 9
|
I know we can write a pure MQ Program for Queue- PTP without JMS, no JNDI lookup. Just using com.ibm.mq.jar with Java.
So, my question, is it possible to write same for Topic - Pub Sub without JMS pure MQ with Java . Not sure .. may be not ... please suggest |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| wschutz |
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
Yes, it is, you would use either the built-in MQ pub/sub broker or the pub/sub facility of WBI Message/Event Broker. (If you use JMS topics, you'll really be using one of these under the covers anyways)
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: Pub Sub without JMS - is it possible ??? |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| xgr3 wrote: |
I know we can write a pure MQ Program for Queue- PTP without JMS, no JNDI lookup. Just using com.ibm.mq.jar with Java.
So, my question, is it possible to write same for Topic - Pub Sub without JMS pure MQ with Java . Not sure .. may be not ... please suggest |
Is it possible: Sure
Is it recommended: I don't think so !
Can you skip all the JNDI stuff: Easy = don't use the TopicConnectionFactory use the MQTopicConnectionFactory and specify your setup.
Read the Using Java Manual !!  [/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| xgr3 |
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 9
|
That makes sense, in production it should not be recommended. Even I tried using MQTopicConenctionFactory, adding com.ibm.mq.jar and com.ibm.mqjms.jar in the classpath. But, compiler was complaing that some methods are not found which is actually defined in TopicConenctionFactory(Interface) and MQTopicConenctionFactory (Class) is the implementation of TopicConenctionFactory. I will try to make it out using broker, which I have not done before I need to dig more on this.
Thanks for your reply ......... any more post on this is welcome |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:12 pm Post subject: Re: Pub Sub without JMS - is it possible ??? |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
Is it possible: Sure
Is it recommended: I don't think so !
|
Why do you say that fjb_saper? Couldn't any application in any language easily Pub or Sub to the WB-IMB Broker, using plain MQ or plain http?
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| malammik |
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 397
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:19 am Post subject: Re: Pub Sub without JMS - is it possible ??? |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Couldn't any application in any language easily Pub or Sub to the WB-IMB Broker, using plain MQ or plain http? |
Doing so in COBOL would be ... challenging.
MQRFH2s are not easy to manipulate in COBOL. Now, maybe with some REXX thrown in...
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| malammik |
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 397
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| malammik wrote: |
| Building and manipulating RFH2 headers in COBOL is going to be a lot easier than in java because they are natively supported. |
I think you have that backwards?
Building an MQRFH2 in Java is as straightforward as setting fields in the proper order with the right values - as you know, having written code to do so.
COBOL doesn't deal well at all with variable length structures or structures that are not well known.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| malammik |
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 397
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
I guess it would also depend on the skill level of the programmer, etc. To tell you the truth, I think both ways are not complicated. Considering the fact that you could make templates for yourself in both languages and not worry about a thing.
_________________
Mikhail Malamud
http://www.netflexity.com
http://groups.google.com/group/qflex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Have you done variable length records in COBOL?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| Have you done variable length records in COBOL? |
My point exactly ! However now we have the new C XMS interface to allow for that.
Yes it gets easier to use a non JMS langage to do JMS type messages...
However given the choice I would still use JMS...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| manojthakkar |
| Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:18 am Post subject: RFH header using java base MQ |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Can you please share the code how to write a message with RFH header with MCD folder in plain java as I tried but not getting through. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| saketr |
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
