| Author |
Message
|
| Laks |
 Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 5:28 pm Post subject: AMI Replacement |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 6
|
Hi All,
Iam a newbie to MQ i have been asked to find alternative solution for AMI as IBM is stopping support by 12/31/05, let me know if you have any options..
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
The regular MQ API.
JMS.
The .NET/Java OO MQ API.
An in-house wrapper layer for the regular MQ API.
What are your actual requirements?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:15 am Post subject: Re: AMI Replacement |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
| Laks wrote: |
Hi All,
Iam a newbie to MQ i have been asked to find alternative solution for AMI as IBM is stopping support by 12/31/05, let me know if you have any options..
Thanks |
Thats news to me, where is that documented?
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EddieA |
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 2453
Location: Los Angeles
|
The web page still states:
| Quote: |
IMPORTANT NOTE
After June 2003, IBM has no plans to enhance the AMI with any new functions or platforms. IBM will however continue to support the AMI as described in the Technical Support sectioin (sic) below. |
And the Technical section states:
| Quote: |
| Service is available for this SupportPac for as long as the prerequisite WebSphere MQ server products are in service. It is only supported when used with a level of MQSeries or WebSphere MQ which is itself currently supported. |
Cheers,
_________________
Eddie Atherton
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
So, as long as WebSphere 5.3 is supported... which isn't going to be forever...
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| So, as long as WebSphere 5.3 is supported... which isn't going to be forever... |
Although surely later than the 12/31/2005, I hope 
AMI will probably work just fine on WMQ v6, supported or not, and at least around here AMI has official yet non-existant support anyway, so not much has changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Laks |
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:39 pm Post subject: AMI Replacement |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 6
|
My actual requirement is, siebel communicates with MQ using AMI transport and puts messages into the one queue from diff application servers.
Thanks.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EddieA |
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 2453
Location: Los Angeles
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| So, as long as WebSphere 5.3 is supported... which isn't going to be forever... |
Errrr, but:
| Quote: |
PREREQUISITES
» AMI V1.2.4 is provided for use with WebSphere MQ V5.3 and WebSphere MQ V6.0 on all supported platforms (except OS/390 and iSeries)
» AMI V1.2.1 is provided for use with MQSeries V5.2 on iSeries. |
Also:
| Quote: |
| The WebSphere MQ AMI V1.2 (for C and COBOL) is also provided for use with WebSphere MQ for z/OS Version 6. |
Cheers,
_________________
Eddie Atherton
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Well, I didn't check to see if it was supported with v6.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Laks |
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 6
|
| Sorry, back to my question wht should i change to make siebel put messages as is today... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| Laks wrote: |
| Sorry, back to my question wht should i change to make siebel put messages as is today... |
That's actually a completely different question...
And I for one don't know the answer, because I don't know Siebel.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Laks |
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 6
|
Iam sorry my mistake...we dont need to do any changes in siebel, but how do we achieve the functionality of AMI using MQ API's ...
Tx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| Laks wrote: |
Iam sorry my mistake...we dont need to do any changes in siebel, but how do we achieve the functionality of AMI using MQ API's ...
Tx |
Well I'm looking at AMI as the precursor of JMS. However this is just my personal opinion...
Now have you looked at JMS and checked which AMI functionality was not covered ?
Enjoy  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
