| Author |
Message
|
| Lainetti |
 Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:11 pm Post subject: WMB Nodes comparison |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Posts: 8
|
Hi all,
I'm new here and tried to find some topic with comparison about WMB nodes but i couldn't.
I'm trying to make a document about best practices and need to compare the use of JAVA, ESQL and Mapping nodes, the advantages and disadvantages of using each one.
Basically I wanna know, which one is more performatic, when is recommended to use Java node or ESQL node, when is not recommended to use Mapping node.
Beside of mapping codes, would be nice to know a comparison between JAVA x ESQL too.
I have to consider WMB v 7.0.0.1 for this, I know mapping node has some issues some times in earlier versions but i don't know if someone have been facing problems in v 7
I always use Mapping node for do the mapping but sometimes I have to use ESQL when Mapping cause some trouble in the flow, but now I'm on a project that uses a framework that forces me too use Java Node for EVERYTHING, I'm trying to prove there's better ways to do the flows (or understand why such architectural decision  )
If anyone can help me on that i will be thankful |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| Quote: |
| but now I'm on a project that uses a framework that forces me too use Java Node for EVERYTHING |
I hope you are keeping your CV/Resume up to date?
A JCN is not the best node for everything.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:21 pm Post subject: Re: WMB Nodes comparison |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Lainetti wrote: |
| (or understand why such architectural decision ) |
It is either a poorly trained architect who "knows" that Java is always the right choice.
Or it is a well thought out decision based on the skillset of the employees who have been tasked with developing things in Broker.
Or it is a poorly thought out decision to dump Broker into the hands of people who only know Java and "save money" by not sending them to proper Broker training.
Best bet you have in your place is to document the time it takes you to develop a given solution in java, and then document the time it takes you to build the same thing in ESQL/mapping, and then run performance tests.
And then accept whatever response to this data you get from management.
And keep your CV polished. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lainetti |
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Posts: 8
|
Well, I dunno yet what really lead to this architectural decision but I believe it's a combination of this 2 possibilities, an architect poorly trained in Broker and a skill set strict to java among the employees.
But I still believe it's better to train developers in esql/Broker properly, in fact I never needed to use JCN (I don't like it) anyway this specific framework can make java development a lil easier and is fast to code on that but obviously not as fast as just drag n drop on a map node
I'm looking for some impartial study about this, like "IBM says this ..." not only me saying I spent this time developing in java and that time on esql
i just can find any kind of description for each node like "mapping node can do this can't do that the performance is ..." "java node can be used for this etc"
for my experience i know there`s better ways to mapping than use a java node ... but the big question is I have to answer why ... not just based on what i do every time
thanks all |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
For mappings the disparity between ESQL, JCN and Mapping node is constantly shrinking.
However like in ESQL you have to KNOW what you are doing in a JCN to get the most efficient processing for your code. And contrary to what you might think it has little to do with standard Java. It has a lot to do on how the Message Tree is represented in each language and how you are going about using the Message Tree.
So forget about instantly successful Java developers with little to no training in WMB.
Have fun 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Lainetti wrote: |
| I'm looking for some impartial study about this, like "IBM says this ..." |
From my experience, IBM tends to say "Use the transformation interface that matches the skillset of your employees". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| joebuckeye |
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 365
Location: Columbus, OH
|
This is the answer that our architects get from IBM whenever they ask these types of questions.
For the record they don't like that answer.
And don't forget to throw in the WTX node for mapping either. Although the WMB and WTX teams seem to blame each other for any issues with the WTX node. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
My 2 cents, something of a personal view and bear in mind I've an aversion to Java:
The IBM view about "matching the skillset of your employees" is perhaps infuriating but the best answer. If you have a large number of Java trained people it probaly makes sense to use JCN to develop code. It's rightly debatable that this gives you the best performing solution, the smallest solution or however you want to measure "best" but it gives you the shortest time from inception to delivery with the least retraining.
This is a separate debate to the one about retraining or not retraining the Java people to use ESQL, and how many non-ex-Java trained admins you need, and what the best medium term development strategy is.
This brings me to my key point. JCNs are a perfectly valid development solution, but cause problems when they are litteraly used for everything. For example, you should use a FileInput node to read a file, an MQOutput node to send a message, etc, even though you can write a JCN to do it. Java in WMB causes a problem when you use it for everything rather than what it's intended for - an alternative to mapping & ESQL with strengths & weaknesses.
The biggest cause of problems is Java trained people migrating to broker and acting like it's WAS. This sounds a lot like the view being peddled in your case. I add my voice to those recommending that your CV is up to date, as this nearly always ends in varying shades of disaster.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
In a previous role, we found that people with SQL experience made excellent WMB developers. ESQL is easy anyway (must be if I can code it).
Database developers understand units of work and transactional rollback much better than most. Using JCNs needs very careful supervision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
| Quote: |
This brings me to my key point. JCNs are a perfectly valid development solution, but cause problems when they are litteraly used for everything. For example, you should use a FileInput node to read a file, an MQOutput node to send a message, etc, even though you can write a JCN to do it. Java in WMB causes a problem when you use it for everything rather than what it's intended for - an alternative to mapping & ESQL with strengths & weaknesses.
|
This is absolutely true. When IBM trots out its standard advice, these caveats are assumed. I guess IBM assumes that architects have taken the IBM training courses, and are therefore perfect  .
History suggests that IBM probably should not make those assumptions... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lainetti |
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Posts: 8
|
Vitor,
It's true , seems to me like they are trying to use WMB as a WAS ... but it's not absolutely everything that java is used, WMB forces to use a input node on the flows and that's not in java
Just kidding, but the fact is Java is used for every piece of logical process, other nodes are used just for MQ input/ output, routing etc ... for me it's obvious that they could take more advantage from WMB, message flows projects should not be designed as classes but as services. Java can be used for many things but I still believe mapping node is much better to do the maps. This situations is like to buy a Ferrari to go to the grocery store.
Anyway I have to make a presentation about ESB / EAI / SOA (it's advantages) and how much easier is to make this things using the right tool correctly The comparison between Java node and mapping / esql it's just an example I wanna give but I need to put literature references. Before update my CV I think I can try to change the directions and perhaps place my self as integration architect
If anyone has something to help me to build this presentation would be nice |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Lainetti wrote: |
| WMB forces to use a input node on the flows and that's not in java |
With a little ingenuity you can even get round that. 
| Lainetti wrote: |
| Before update my CV I think I can try to change the directions and perhaps place my self as integration architect |
I wish you good fortune with this and hope that you're changing the direction of a fishing boat rather than a super tanker.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| Lainetti wrote: |
| WMB forces to use a input node on the flows and that's not in java |
What's so wrong with that? You have to start somewhere don't you?
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lainetti |
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Posts: 8
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| Lainetti wrote: |
| WMB forces to use a input node on the flows and that's not in java |
What's so wrong with that? You have to start somewhere don't you? |
nothing, i was trying to say that's not possible to make a flow like just a bunch of java nodes one after another you have at least to put a input node such as MQ input, SOAP etc and an output node hehe well, u if wanna to u can make a flow like msg input --> jcn --> jcn --> jcn -- msg out ... probably it will be trouble but u can hahahaha
Vitor, i'm not naive (well, not every time) i think there's an open mind and they are welcoming new ideas ... it worthy one shot ... if it not work ... well ... at least i tried |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Lainetti wrote: |
| Vitor, i'm not naive (well, not every time) i think there's an open mind and they are welcoming new ideas ... it worthy one shot ... if it not work ... well ... at least i tried |
Quite, and I repeat my good wishes.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
