| Author |
Message
|
| krypton |
 Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 3:40 am Post subject: getting the deployed flow properties - BAR file names |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 14 Mar 2010
Posts: 186
|
Hi Friends,
We are facing a unique situtaiton in which we have deployed all the flows into an execution group in the SIT environment, now we are meant to deploy the same flows in another environment. We are having around more than 130 flows in that execution group. somehow we are trying to get the name of all the BAR files attached with the flows present in the execution group. so that we can get all the BAR files (which are present in different developers system at different location) and run a mass deployment in another environment.
Our biggest challenge is to get the name of all the BAR files, one way I see it is to Manually go to each Flow and refer to "keywords- Bar File Name" property and get the name of BAR file, but it would be very tedious to get the details like this considering the number of flows we r having. What we are looking for is the command to get the list of all the BAR files which has been used to deploy flow into the execution group.
Anyone have any idea on this.. please help.
thanks
_________________
Dreams are not something which you watch when you are asleep,it is something which doesn't let you sleep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| wschutz |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
CMP: public String getBARFileName() throws ConfigManagerProxyPropertyNotInitializedException
Returns the name of the BAR file that was used to deploy the message flow to the execution group. This method will return null if the BAR file was deployed by specifying an InputStream parameter to ExecutionGroupProxy.deploy() and a valid BAR file label was not supplied.
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 4:43 am Post subject: Re: getting the deployed flow properties - BAR file names |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| krypton wrote: |
| What we are looking for is the command to get the list of all the BAR files which has been used to deploy flow into the execution group. |
Why do you want to do this? And what use is it even when you get the list? As you yourself said the bar files will be
| krypton wrote: |
| present in different developers system at different location |
So you probably won't even be able to get access to them. In fact some may well have been deleted.
Better to just build your own bar files for the new environment.
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
I'll agree... better yet, use one of the library systems that supported by Broker Toolkit/Eclipse to manage your artifacts.
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| krypton |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 14 Mar 2010
Posts: 186
|
fatherjack wrote:
| Quote: |
| So you probably won't even be able to get access to them. In fact some may well have been deleted. |
Hi fatherjack,
getting the BAR files would not be a problem, all the developers workspace is shared to a particular folder, we can get the BAR file names from there. We also have some of the details about the BAR files to be deployed, but the problem is we want to be sure exact 100%. whether the list we have is accurcate with our SIT environment, we are running short of time and do not have the luxury to confirm the details manually one by one.
_________________
Dreams are not something which you watch when you are asleep,it is something which doesn't let you sleep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| krypton wrote: |
| getting the BAR files would not be a problem |
Fine, and hopefully none of your developers have updated any of these with something else since. So I'd still suggest building your own from the message flows in your source control system. Or are you saying you may no longer have the source that was used to generate those bars.
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| krypton wrote: |
| but the problem is we want to be sure exact 100%. whether the list we have is accurcate with our SIT environment |
Your problem is also that the BAR files may have been modified since deployment to this environment and so even with the right names you may get the wrong code.
| krypton wrote: |
| we are running short of time |
Time spent up front installing controls (even if it's just a separate folder for deployed BAR files rather than something better like source code control) saves time at the end. Just piling up code in a folder & throwing it at an environment leads you into this sort of problem.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| krypton |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 14 Mar 2010
Posts: 186
|
| Quote: |
| Fine, and hopefully none of your developers have updated any of these with something else since. So I'd still suggest building your own from the message flows in your source control system. Or are you saying you may no longer have the source that was used to generate those bars |
Hi Fatherjack, we have the sources but then the source itself is spread across multiple modules, and we need to select only a particular module.
See our environment is something like we have n module and each module flows is deployed in different execution group EG1, EG2..EGn
we need to generate a copy of our execution group in another environment, our developers team is seperate (only 3 developers) but the code in CVS is very messy(lot of merging of modules) .. If we can get the list from existing environment then it would leave us no doubt. otherwise we would always wonder in case of any problem in new environment "What got Missed"
_________________
Dreams are not something which you watch when you are asleep,it is something which doesn't let you sleep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| krypton wrote: |
| If we can get the list from existing environment then it would leave us no doubt. |
But the names of the deployed BAR files would neither confirm or deny anything about contents at the time of the deploy. It's whatever was used at the time. If the modules contained in the BAR have been edited / changed / merged since the BAR file was built how will you reconstruct the environment in the state you're looking for? You're still going to have uncertainty over the contents.
If the development team is only 3 people you're probably better off getting them to build a new bar file(s) containing the code version they think you should be using. Then changing your CVS configuration and processes so it can do this for you automatically from the source without all this running round!
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| krypton |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 14 Mar 2010
Posts: 186
|
Thanks Vitor, I would communicate your suggestion to the team saying its an expert advice from a IBMer 
Also, would you help me in another of the problem I am facing with Mapping node , there is another post for the same at the below link
http://www.mqseries.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=53712&sid=f37cc2336e3cae860ff9fb820603d84e
_________________
Dreams are not something which you watch when you are asleep,it is something which doesn't let you sleep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| krypton wrote: |
| Thanks Vitor, I would communicate your suggestion to the team saying its an expert advice from a IBMer |
It's advice that's saved me from distaster on a few WMB projects. But you shouldn't assume anyone in here is an IBMer unless they volunteer the information. 
Saw the thread & if I had anything relevant to say I'd have said it. I don't personally use the mapping node; I prefer to write ESQL in compute nodes. That's not a technical objection or any kind of down on the mapping node, just a personal preference and too many sites that don't have stable enough data layouts to use message sets.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| krypton |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 14 Mar 2010
Posts: 186
|
| Quote: |
| Saw the thread & if I had anything relevant to say I'd have said it. I don't personally use the mapping node; I prefer to write ESQL in compute nodes. That's not a technical objection or any kind of down on the mapping node, just a personal preference and too many sites that don't have stable enough data layouts to use message sets. |
thanks Vitor and all, for your time and advice, really appreciate it a lot.
Warm Regards,
Krypton
_________________
Dreams are not something which you watch when you are asleep,it is something which doesn't let you sleep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
All the arguements about the contents of the bar files changing apply equally to the message flows and message sets.
Conversely, bar files can be kept in a source control and versioning repository just like message flows. In which case you should have as much confidence in their contents as you do a message flow or set.
In my opinion the WMB software should have a better way to display / export all the Broker settings, the Execution group names, settings, contents, with details about each flow and message set. I know I can access it by writing code. I shouldn't have to. Should be a button in the Toolkit. It would make it easy to compare Production Broker #1 to Production Broker #2 if both are supposed to be twins, or compare Prod to DR, or compare QA to PROD, etc, etc.
Yes, I have submitted a requirement form on the topic to IBM.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| krypton |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 14 Mar 2010
Posts: 186
|
PeterPookay wrote:
| Quote: |
All the arguements about the contents of the bar files changing apply equally to the message flows and message sets.
Conversely, bar files can be kept in a source control and versioning repository just like message flows. In which case you should have as much confidence in their contents as you do a message flow or set.
In my opinion the WMB software should have a better way to display / export all the Broker settings, the Execution group names, settings, contents, with details about each flow and message set. I know I can access it by writing code. I shouldn't have to. Should be a button in the Toolkit. It would make it easy to compare Production Broker #1 to Production Broker #2 if both are supposed to be twins, or compare Prod to DR, or compare QA to PROD, etc, etc.
Yes, I have submitted a requirement form on the topic to IBM. |
Completely agree Peter, there should be some proper command or the feature in toolkit for the same. this is what exactly I was looking for.
But, now we have to do the work manually and better manage all the relevant codes/Bar files in the future with our project.
Thanks.
_________________
Dreams are not something which you watch when you are asleep,it is something which doesn't let you sleep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Conversely, bar files can be kept in a source control and versioning repository just like message flows. In which case you should have as much confidence in their contents as you do a message flow or set. |
Absolutely, for those used to build production systems. But bar files used by developers on an ad-hoc basis, which seems to be what the OP is talking about, I'm not sure about that.
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| In my opinion the WMB software should have a better way to display / export all the Broker settings, the Execution group names, settings, contents, with details about each flow and message set. |
But this would be a nice feature.
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
