| Author |
Message
|
| 8davitt |
 Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:26 am Post subject: JMS or MQ Java API? |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 37
Location: Seated in front of monitor
|
A question that constantly arises in the world of Java messaging is 'Can I use feature XYZ from the MQ API with my JMS application?'.
<RANT>
(MQ Java API != JMS API)
It is as simple as that.
Yes many features of the MQ API have found their way into the JMS API but they are not the same.
Why is it that so many people do not read the API specifications before starting to design and code their applications?
Just read it. Use the features that the API provides. Do not come along afterwards and starting looking for functionality that is not there.
If the feature is not available then live with it and workaround.
Yes you can always ask IBM to make the feature available in their implementation of the particular API you are using ...... but this does not happen overnight.
</RANT>
/s
Phew I feel better for that.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
It's part of a broader question, regarding why people don't check that feature X is available from product Y before designing, coding or building.
Or the even broader question of why people don't RTFM before the event? Or at all?
Should we run a competition for the daftest / most obvious MQ-related question asked? I'll open the bidding with a C coder who wanted to know where his messages were disappearing to. When asked if he'd got a reason code from the MQPUT his response "Why should I bother checking that?" resulted in a slightly unprofessional answer... 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 8davitt |
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 37
Location: Seated in front of monitor
|
Mmmm. Maybe. Or rather than broad is it more elementary. For example if someone started coding in Java and then wanted a language feature that was available in COBOL would they start asking Sun why that feature was not available? I doubt it. One would hope they know the functionality of the programming language they have chosen and then are prepared to live with their choice.
On the subject of daft MQ statements I once encountered someone who believed their code was so good it did not require diagnostics. It would never go wrong. Now is that confidence, arrogance or stupidity?
/s |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| 8davitt wrote: |
I once encountered someone who believed their code was so good it did not require diagnostics. It would never go wrong. Now is that confidence, arrogance or stupidity?
|
A subtle blend of all three.
I've often encountered the view that code does not require diagnostics / error trapping / data & parameter checking because the input is provided by another system further up and therefore will always be accurate & in the expected format.
Until of course someone makes a change without proper impact analysis. Which of course can never happen with the strictly enforced development guidelines in place on all sites......
Now that's what I call confidence!
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SAFraser |
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
My favorite is the developer who asks me, despite my many attempts to educate him, to "check and see if my queue is running?"
Also a favorite is the developer who, when wanting to see if he has opened a queue in order to PUT messages into it, asks me to "check the listener" on the queue.
Shirley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tleichen |
| Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 663
Location: Center of the USA
|
| 8davitt wrote: |
.... One would hope they know the functionality of the programming language they have chosen and then are prepared to live with their choice.
On the subject of daft MQ statements I once encountered someone who believed their code was so good it did not require diagnostics. It would never go wrong. Now is that confidence, arrogance or stupidity?
/s |
As for the first remark, from what I have seed here in the past, I think you are giving most people way too much credit! 
Regarding your question about whether it is confidence, arrogance or stupidity,... The fact that you came up with the question makes me think you probably already know the answer... 
_________________
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist
IBM Certified MQSeries Developer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
