| Author |
Message
|
| strom |
 Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 11
|
Yeah vitor i sort of get that point your trying to get at ...
that somehow set of circumstances have been created in the envionment where i am using this application that is leading to this implicit commit being caused ... that it may not work even if some small change is made to environment ..
Still this application is being used for bout 2-3 yrs now without change ..
I have been put in this project which uses this application ...
Used daily ( atleast six days a week  )
Analysing the code i stumbled upon this anomaly if i may be able to call it .
I being an fresher, with just basic knowledge of how MQ works complicates the matter ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| strom |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 11
|
Another query ....
1 ) What will happens if explicit commit is made after multiple syncpoints ?.....
a) from which syncpoint are the messages actually visible ?..
b) do the syncpoints made during same connection Overridden ?..
example :
1) put message1
2) syncpoint
3) put message 2
4) syncpoint
5) put message 3
6) commit
which messages will visible ?.....
I hope my queries do not anger you people ...
( they may seem simple to you all .. but they really seem daunting to me ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
I believe that *all* messages will be available.
But I haven't played with it.
It seems relatively simple to code up a test app...
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bower5932 |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Aug 2001
Posts: 3023
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| strom wrote: |
i will be adding an explicit commit statement in the code ..
( thats for sure ) !!!!!!! |
or remove the syncpoint if there is no reason to hold back the messages and don't worry about commits (implicit or explicit)
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| strom |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 11
|
Syncpoint is added to make the code generalised . it seems ...
For now the code is used in an application where each message sent to MQ is a seperate transaction ....
but this code could be also used where maybe 2 or more messages need to be passed as an single transaction
( what i mean is that application sends fixed size messsage to MQ , currently no transaction is huge enough to bypass this size , multiple message are not required to be sent for it , but it could be possible in future ...)
so removing syncpoint may not be an wise idea ( atleast in this case ... )
so adding explicit commit may be the better option .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Nigelg |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 1046
|
Performance is best for persistent msgs if the msgs are put in syncpoint.
_________________
MQSeries.net helps those who help themselves.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| strom |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 11
|
So Implicit commit in CLOSE connection to MQmanager could have been the only way this thing to happen ?...
also Vitor this piece of code runs on atleast 3 machines ...
1) one on our dev environment
2)at UAT instance
3) in PRODuction at clients instance
so the same environment being present in all three cases chances are pretty slim , |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| strom wrote: |
| so the same environment being present in all three cases chances are pretty slim , |
So you develop on a different O/S, on a different level of Java, with a different level of WMQ?
How unusual.  
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| strom |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 11
|
OK VITOR they are same .. 
But can there be no other reason ?...
i mean other than
a) environment or
b) implicit commit in CLOSE connection ? ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
