| Author |
Message
|
| schroederms |
 Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:32 am Post subject: Adding brokers into Message Broker toolkit V7 |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 169
Location: IA
|
Does anyone know the logic behind how the brokers are being shown in the toolkit? I've added them back out in different orders to try to figure it out, with no success in trying to figure out their logic.
The most practical way of displaying the brokers would be in alphabetical order I would think, but I guess not.
Anyone's insight on this would be a help.
Thanks.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
I would expect that local brokers would show up more or less alphabetically. It's *possible* they would be listed in alphabetical order by QM name, rather than Broker name.
It's possible as well that remote brokers are listed in alphabetical order of the .broker file name. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| schroederms |
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 169
Location: IA
|
I heard back from IBM and they said there is no "order" in how the brokers show up in the toolkit in version 7.
WOW, what a oversight! I have 10 to 20 brokers (depends what environment) some on windows, some on UNIX, and they can't even sort them by broker name. It is a mess, someone slipped on this one!!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| schroederms wrote: |
| WOW, what a oversight! I have 10 to 20 brokers (depends what environment) some on windows, some on UNIX, and they can't even sort them by broker name. It is a mess, someone slipped on this one!!!! |
I look forward to the requirement you're going to raise on this, which I would be happy to support.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
I'm confused.
Are you talking about Toolkit v7? Or MBX 7.0?
Your toolkit at the v7 level shouldn't really have many Brokers defined to it. There's not much work you do with Toolkit in v7 other than a simple deploy... it's really really really really meant for *development*, not *administration*.
MB Explorer should behave differently and have a more logically sorted view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| schroederms |
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 169
Location: IA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
Your toolkit at the v7 level shouldn't really have many Brokers defined to it. There's not much work you do with Toolkit in v7 other than a simple deploy... it's really really really really meant for *development*, not *administration*.
MB Explorer should behave differently and have a more logically sorted view. |
I'm talking about the toolkit v7.
Deploying the flows is part of the problem. Before in ALL PRIOR releases being able to find the Broker / QMGR was easy, now if you have large numbers of brokers you have to fish through the list.
Also, we have a EAI group within this company that does both admin, development, and deployment. I had to install a separate version of eclipse for the MQ / Message Broker Explorer, to just see my subscriptions and just do admin on the broker.... How many toolkits and versions of eclipse do we need now?
Sorry, I don't buy it. Have the brokers sorted within the Toolkit and I stop bitching. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| schroederms wrote: |
| Have the brokers sorted within the Toolkit and I stop bitching. |
I repeat my earlier comment. 
And simply add that bitching to your IBM account rep may be more productive than bitching here. In addition to the requirement you're going to raise.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| schroederms |
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 169
Location: IA
|
Just got an update from IBM......
Based on a PMR we opened, the fix can come as a PMR instead of opening a requirement.
The sorting logic will be based on connection information (queue manager name @host:port) in ascending order.
The fix will be in in 7.0.0.2 IFix001 (should be available somewhere in 1Q 2011).
Sorry if I came across as bitching to someone on this board, not the case. Just was somewhat frustrated with the product at the time.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| schroederms wrote: |
| Based on a PMR we opened, the fix can come as a PMR instead of opening a requirement. |
You should feel justified that IBM also considered this a bug.
| schroederms wrote: |
| Sorry if I came across as bitching to someone on this board, not the case. Just was somewhat frustrated with the product at the time. |
It is your right as a paying customer to bitch about the product. My comment was intended entirely to point out there was an official and potential useful route for your complaint.
Which subsequent events have proved how useful.
Thank you for updating the thread with your resolution.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
I am not saying you came across as bitching.
I'm just reminding you that there's a change in focus in version 7, to provide a SEPARATE set of Tooling to Broker Administrators than to Broker Developers. This provides a number of advantages: - a much much smaller footprint on administrative machines
- a much simpler method of preventing unwanted administration from developers (don't give them MBX)
- a more unified administrative experience for both MQ and broker at the same time
- A cleaner environment for development
and etc. etc. I mean, how many times have you said to yourself in 6.1 "I really want to deploy that flow, but now i have to go in and create all those queues it needs first..."
It does mean that if you are serving in both roles, you have a slightly larger footprint of install in terms of "moving parts", but I think you'll find that the overall install is still smaller. Toolkit is now down under 1GB on disk, and MBX (even counting the MQExplorer and Eclipse it needs) is also under 1GB.
Just think of MBX as being the Adminstrative perspect of WMBT when opened in a new windows... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
