| Author |
Message
|
| solkit |
 Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: VB TRANSPORT_PROPERTY |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 21
|
I'm trying to make connection from JAVA, VB Client to Queue manager in MQ Server.
JAVA Application works successfully but VB Application always fails.
The error code is 2059 (MQRC_Q_MGR_NOT_AVAILABLE)
I compared JAVA Application with VB Application.
The only diffrence between JAVA and VB is MQEnvironment.properties.put(MQC.TRANSPORT_PROPERTY, MQC.TRANSPORT_MQSERIES);
There is the option in JAVA application but not in VB.
I'd like to know how I can set MQC.TRANSPORT_PROPERTY, MQC.TRANSPORT_MQSERIES options in VB Application.
Anybody knows?
_________________
^^ have a good day ^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| EddieA |
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 2453
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Quote: |
| The only diffrence between JAVA and VB is MQEnvironment.properties.put(MQC.TRANSPORT_PROPERTY, MQC.TRANSPORT_MQSERIES); |
That won't cause a 2059. That's telling the Java program to write a "normal" MQ message instead of a JMS message. there is no equivalent in VB.
Cheers,
_________________
Eddie Atherton
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
To be clearer, what EddieA means is that the VB/.NET interface doesn't have a notion of the JMS Header (except as a pure MQRFH2 header), and so there isn't a switch that controls whether the .NET interface will put a message with the MQRFH2 or without an MQRFH2 - which the MQC.TRANPSORT_PROPERTY in Java controls.
On the other hand, what you are actually looking for is
http://www.mqseries.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=140060#140060
This will allow you to not receive a 2059.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| solkit |
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 21
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
To be clearer, what EddieA means is that the VB/.NET interface doesn't have a notion of the JMS Header (except as a pure MQRFH2 header), and so there isn't a switch that controls whether the .NET interface will put a message with the MQRFH2 or without an MQRFH2 - which the MQC.TRANPSORT_PROPERTY in Java controls.
On the other hand, what you are actually looking for is
http://www.mqseries.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=140060#140060
This will allow you to not receive a 2059. |
Thank you very much... ^^
Anyway I'm leaving Holland.. go back to Korea.
All the guys who helped me, Thank you very much....
I'm travelling Paris on this weekend and Hannover on next weekend ^^
Thanks again, if anybody come to Korea just mail me ^^ solkit70@yahoo.co.kr.
Bye...~~
_________________
^^ have a good day ^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
To be clearer, what EddieA means is that the VB/.NET interface doesn't have a notion of the JMS Header (except as a pure MQRFH2 header), and so there isn't a switch that controls whether the .NET interface will put a message with the MQRFH2 or without an MQRFH2 - which the MQC.TRANPSORT_PROPERTY in Java controls.
On the other hand, what you are actually looking for is
http://www.mqseries.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=140060#140060
This will allow you to not receive a 2059. |
I am getting confused here. I thought that part (MQRFH2) was controlled by the targetClient property (JMS).
The Transport property controls whether you plan on making a server or a client connection and the different flavors thereof??
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
I was just repeating EddieA's mistake...  
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
