| Author |
Message
|
| DJN |
 Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:09 am Post subject: WBIMB vs DataStage TX |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 47
|
At my current contract they are comtemplating replacing WMQI/WBIMB with DataStage TX. DataStage TX is the old Mercator product. I was interested if anybody has an opinion on this topic. I would be very interested in the strengths and weaknesses of DataStage TX and how it compare to WMQI/WBIMB.
Thanks to all who venture an opinion.[/u] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| ashoon |
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:36 am Post subject: interesting topic |
|
|
Master
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 235
|
would love to hear what others have to say as a comparison... since both are in theory functionally equivalent why are they thinking of switching? There's also the option of calling TX from within WMB.
From what I've seen TX has 'message set' equivalents for quite a few standards out there - SWIFT, ACORD, HL7/HIPAA as well as support for complex Cobol/XML (as claimed). The mapping functionality is about the same imho - and I believe that in general MB has a higher throughput and scalability/availability as compared to TX.
Others? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DJN |
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 47
|
| FYI... The reason for the replacement is the performance, or lack of performance, of the WBIA mySAP adapter. These adapters are a bottlenneck in the overall process and have proved to be unreliable. I have already asked the question 'why are we not looking for a replacement for the adapters?'. DataStage TX does not require an adapter to communicate with SAP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ashoon |
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject: adapters |
|
|
Master
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 235
|
WMB doesn't need an adapter to communicate with SAP - you can use the R3 link w/ MB's IDOC parsing capabilities however the adapter does have the ODA which is a great tool for creating message sets for your SAP objects.
Where is the adapter running? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| dbjohnsson |
| Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:49 pm Post subject: Any IBM resources showing the differences? |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 8
|
Hi,
Does anyone know whether there are any IBM resources showing the difference between Datastage and WMB in terms of capability and performance?
Cheers
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| saurabh867 |
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 13 Jun 2010
Posts: 78
|
The basic differences are :
1. TX is meant only for transformation. You can transformation for almost all message formats and best things is you have industry packs avialable for most of the standard message formats.
2. MB is meant for intelligent routing and transformation.
3. Support for all new industry packs are provided by IBM as Type tree which make the job easy for transformation
4. Performance may be one factor coz TX's transformation engine is built specifically for the task but not sure.
5. MB has lots of other functionality where it can act as web service host , provider and lot more .
Finally a combination of two gives an ideal solution.
Regards,
Saurabh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
WebSphere Message Broker product vision is to be an Extended Enterprise Service Bus. All (most) of the DataStage TX functionality is wrapped into WTX nodes which are incorporated into WMB. DataStage is not and has never intended to be an ESB. I suppose one could use it for that, but I would hate to see it.
What you are missing, is the view of the Systems Architect. Consult an experienced Systems Architect to help you lay in place the architecture. Never run with scissors.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| inMo |
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 27 Jun 2009
Posts: 216
Location: NY
|
Start by considering there is a TX node for broker. That should be enough to suggest each has a sweet spot. As it is broker that calls TX, and not the other way around, it should suggest that WMB has a larger library of core capabilities then does TX.
The arguement that TX and Broker are the same is false, although they do have certain overlapping capabilities. The overlap is limited.
The statement that No adapters are needed for TX to communicate with SAP is completely false. Try running TX for SAP communications without the purchase of the SAP Pack (aka SAP adapter).
You are using the term WBIA mySAP adapter. Is this the older version of the SAP adapter offering? If so - it was/is, for lack of a more appropriate term, a p.o.s that had major performance & reliability problems due to a design issue inherited by IBM. (that is why IBM moved away from it IMHO). Please confirm you are NOT using the newest offering:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/ieduasst/v1r1m0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.iea.wmbadapters_v6/wmbadapters/6.1/SAPAdapter.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
