| Author |
Message
|
| ucbus1 |
 Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:13 am Post subject: Question on Process Server |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 30 Jan 2002
Posts: 560
|
I am novice when it comes to WPS.
I see from the forum, MQ Workflow would be replaced by process server.
I tired searching for documentaion on WPS and found that one needs to migrate from Workflow to WebSphere Integration Developer.
I am bit confused with all the new terms>
1. IS MQ WF Bulidtime= WebSphere Integration Developer?
2. Is MQ WF RunTime= W Process server/
Can somebody post some details please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| vennela |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
1. Almost true
2. Almost true
But you can build in WID and deploy in WID's Process Server Test environment.
Or you can build in WID and export the project and install it in WPS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kotha |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 333
|
| There is an option to import the FDLs into WID. Workflow is a part of functionality in WPS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
| kotha wrote: |
| There is an option to import the FDLs into WID. |
I don't think so, but I would love to be proven wrong.
But, there is another utility called FDL2BPEL (which actually is a support pack), that can convert the FDL into artifacts that can be imported into WID and then fix it up and assemble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kotha |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 333
|
| I imported the FDL into WID. It throws some warnings and errors. we can easily fix them. BUT when I see the Process diagram, it is a BIG mess. the imported fdl has only 4 activities and in Process diagram, it got many. Need to do some homework to understand better!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kotha |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 333
|
AND
those errors I got are referring to undefined MQ QMs and Qs. When I imported a fld which has only human activities, I have got no errors. So it is pretty simple if we configure those references. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Kotha:
It is my opinion that you are correct both times.
1) I think the FDL can be imported
2) The Process Model constructed from the FDL that is imported seemed to be close to useless to me.
So I guess my question is:
Is vennela right? 
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kotha |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 333
|
| jmac wrote: |
2) The Process Model constructed from the FDL that is imported seemed to be close to useless to me.
|
Venny might have overlooked the import option. Anyway, what you said (point 2) is right. conditons, programs, etc etc are all visible in Process diagram. that is making me confused to understand the flow in WID.
No tool can beat Workflow buildtime tool.
And I know John likes buildtime tool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Kotha:
MQWF BuildTime was ok
FlowMark BuildTime was even BETTER
The import function is not something I will be using when moving from MQWF to WPS. It is my personal opinion that the move is NOT a conversion... it is a rewrite.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kotha |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 333
|
FlowMark BuildTime was even BETTER
I have never heard of FlowMark. is it IBM tool?. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
FlowMark was the predecessor to MQWF. Introduced by IBM early 1995.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MaheshPN |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 21 May 2003
Posts: 245
Location: Charlotte, NC
|
Regarding the FDL import,
I attended one of the POT session from IBM where they mentioning about Modeler supporting the FDL import better than WID.
I haven't tried that. If you guys have modeler 6, please import there and let us know.
I concur with John and others that, moving from WF to WPS is not a conversion, its a rewrite. With difficulties and support packs you can convert the fdl to a Process flow but what about the "tons" of java api's used in the application? If you guys a some idea let me know
Thanks,
-Mahesh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kotha |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 333
|
| Quote: |
| what about the "tons" of java api's used in the application? If you guys a some idea let me know |
to understand better about whats happening those APIs, you got to work with WID. WID treats applications differently. After you import your model into WID, let us know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
| MaheshPN wrote: |
| but what about the "tons" of java api's used in the application? |
I take it that you mean all of your code which uses the MQWF api that now needs to use the BPC API.
YEP, that's why its a rewrite. The api's are similar enough that it should not take you very long to learn the API. BUT, the API's were different enough (at least for me) to let me practice up on my humility. I.E I would most likely not believe someone who indicated that changing from MQWF to WPS is a "no brainer"
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hos |
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 03 Feb 2002
Posts: 470
|
Hi, one question to all of you who deal with these issues:
isn't it an option to leave the existing projects on MQWF and start new projects on WPS? This would at least relieve you from the migration problems. Instead the focus would be how to concurrently operate (federate) the two systems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
