| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| wild card support for Qmgr Alias ?? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| WBI_user |
 Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:48 am Post subject: wild card support for Qmgr Alias ?? |
 |
|
Partisan
Joined: 07 Aug 2001
Posts: 386
|
The scenario
EQmgr1....EQmgrn <----> QmgrA <----> QmgrB
QmgrA and QmgrB are Qmgrs in two different companies
QmgrA is getting requests from many external Qmgrs (EQmgr1...EQmgrn) and they have to forward these requests to QmgrB.
Each EQmgr has a local queue "RQ" defined to receive replies and QmgrB has a local queue "REQ" defined to receive requests.
The application on EQmgr1....EQmgrn will do a MQPUT to "REQ" on QmgrB with the replyto Q set to "RQ" and replytoQmgr set to EQmgr1... EQmgrn
There is no problem sending the request to QmgrB through QmgrA. All I need is a Q manager Alias on QmgrA to redirect the request message to XmitQ QmgrB
On QmgrB, the application will put the reply back to the "RQ" on EQmgr1 ... "RQ" on EQmgrn.
All these replies are routing through QmgrA. So I need a way to redirect the replies to XmitQ QmgrA. I know that I can use Qmgr Alias on QmgrB like I did with the requests. However this require QmgrB to know the name of all the EQmgrs.
My challenge is QmgrA and QmgrB are two different companies.A lot of time, QmgrA cannot wait for QmgrB to update the Alias before allowing a new partner to send in the request. If the new request has replytoQmgr of EQmgrX, the application on QmgrB will fail because there is no alias for EQmgrX defined on QmgrB yet. One way of handling this is to use default XMitq. QmgrB has refused to use default XmitQ because they don't want to use it for just one partner.
I am hoping that I can use wild card for Qmgr Alias (such as EQmgr**) So replies messages for all EQmgr1...Eqmgrn, EQmgrX..Y..Z will all go to XmitQ QmgrA. But I don't think wild card is supported (I may be wrong).
Any suggestion ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| EddieA |
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 2453
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Quote: |
| But I don't think wild card is supported (I may be wrong). |
Nope, you are not wrong. No wildcards.
You could look into using the "Default" Transmission Queue, even though most people don't recommend using it.
Cheers,
_________________
Eddie Atherton
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
@ Eddie
| Quote: |
| One way of handling this is to use default XMitq. QmgrB has refused to use default XmitQ because they don't want to use it for just one partner. |
An other way would be to create a restrictive cluster with QmgrA and QMGRB and possibly cluster the XMITQ's for EQmgr1 ->n.
This way B would know about n without having to do anything about it. ??
Haven't tried it so I would appreciate any feedback 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WBI_user |
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 07 Aug 2001
Posts: 386
|
| Thanks for the quick replies, however as I said QmgrB has already refused to use default XmitQ. Since QmgrA and QmgrB are two different companies, clustering is probably not an option. it is difficult to coordinate any maintenance activities between two companies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mq_developer |
| Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 82
|
From your requirments & restrictions that you have , you have to get message across from B to Eqmgr* , just by specifying a remote queue definition in Qmgr A ( Application in QmgrB shouldnt be aware of EQmgr* , it should send it to QmgrA from where it should get forwarded to EQmgr*).
That said , have a look at
| Code: |
| ReplytoQ Alias in Intercommuincation manual |
that will help you , i am pretty sure it is doable , but it is going to be lot of QR defintions .. Hence the reason clustering QmgrA & QmgrB would be ideal & elegant.
Good luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
