| Author |
Message
|
| WakeUpSid |
 Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:19 am Post subject: Web Services in MB |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 10
|
Our team is planning to select Message Broker as a tool to invoke web services which has larger payload (~30 Meg) in the response message. Besides the H/W implications (say we have good sized h/w), is this a right solution?
I'm trying to gather cons for this being a MB solution, any suggestions/pointing why MB is not a right choice for WS with larger payloads? or this could be a MB solution.
--
Sid |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Gaya3 |
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 2493
Location: Boston, US
|
if its a heavy payload, and if you are doing any kind of transformation logic on the data, i will not recommend MB , this is my suggestion..
We can listen to what experts say about this.
_________________
Regards
Gayathri
-----------------------------------------------
Do Something Before you Die
Last edited by Gaya3 on Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:06 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WakeUpSid |
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 10
|
I'm with you, MB is not recommended. But, can't win the battle with a blanket statement we need to have facts around that.
As you said, waiting for the experts to share their thoughts.
--
Sid |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
There's no good reason why WMB can't efficiently manage 30Mb blocks of data subject to the underlying WMQ structure being changed from the default 4Mb limit.
Given that, your question becomes "any suggestions / pointers why MB is not a right choice for WS" and IHMO the answer is no.
That is of course simplistic and depends a lot on what your web services do aside from have large payloads.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
You're going to have significant performance issues moving 30MB over HTTP, no matter who sends it.
There's no particular reason that Broker is a bad solution for this requirement.
You've also given absolutely no realistic criteria for deciding whether broker is "a good solution" or not.
You've given no mention of what you're comparing Broker against. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gaya3 |
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 2493
Location: Boston, US
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| You've given no mention of what you're comparing Broker against. |
Yes true 
_________________
Regards
Gayathri
-----------------------------------------------
Do Something Before you Die |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WakeUpSid |
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 10
|
The alternative solution could be framework based something like Java API for XML Web Services.. ??
As Vitor said, "There's no good reason why WMB can't efficiently manage 30Mb", want to validate with experts.
I would say, all the validation, transformation, enrichment in MB but the actual call to the end point URL should be via MB.
--
Sid |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WakeUpSid |
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 10
|
******
I would say, all the validation, transformation, enrichment in MB but the actual call to the end point URL should'nt be via MB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| WakeUpSid wrote: |
| I would say, all the validation, transformation, enrichment in MB |
It's good at those things.
| WakeUpSid wrote: |
| but the actual call to the end point URL should'nt be via MB. |
Why not. The SOAP and HTTP nodes do that OK. If not, what else would you do? Do all the validation, transformation, enrichment in MB and then put the message somewhere else for some other bit of technology to pick it up and call to the end point URL and vice versa for on the way back? Maybe there's some performance or other benefits? Please enlighten me.
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gralgrathor |
| Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Posts: 297
|
| fatherjack wrote: |
| Why not. The SOAP and HTTP nodes do that OK. |
Still, you gotta ask why a service that shunts that amount of data per transaction is made available through HTTP. Design issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Gralgrathor wrote: |
| fatherjack wrote: |
| Why not. The SOAP and HTTP nodes do that OK. |
Still, you gotta ask why a service that shunts that amount of data per transaction is made available through HTTP. Design issue? |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
