| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| USS and Z/OS interconnectivity questions |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| ivanachukapawn |
 Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 561
|
Bruce,
Thanks very much for your help so far. At this point, I am feeling somewhat confident that I will be able to prototype a USS Java App connecting to Z/OS queue manager either via client or in bindings mode. One further question: Could a Z/OS MQ trigger monitor trigger the start of such a USS Java Application? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guest
|
Yes. there are a variety of ways to launch work on the mainframe (cics, ims, batch, started task, tso...).
Refer to the MQ z/OS System Admin Guide, System Setup Guide , Concepts and Planning Guide. Check support pacs for examples of how-to for batch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
But if your java app is not in WAS, you can't make a client connection.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| anatolz |
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject: USS and Z/OS interconnectivity questions |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Posts: 5
Location: Redwood City, CA
|
Thanks to all for an informative discussion. Alas, I've posted a similar question a while back and still can't understand the answer to it, despite getting a lot of useful info close to the core of my question. So:
I have a pair of little Linux - based C++ MQ client applications, which communicate via the queue manager based on z/OS, using a couple of local queues. Now if I compile and build these same little apps on USS, would they still run in the same way?
I'm still having problems getting the C++ applications on Linux to work with MQ the way I want them to (I'm a novice both at MQ and z/OS), so I haven't yet tried to just run the stuff on USS - hopefully I'll do that later tonight. They do compile and link on USS without problems.
TIA,
--Anatol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: Re: USS and Z/OS interconnectivity questions |
|
|
Guest
|
| anatolz wrote: |
Thanks to all for an informative discussion. Alas, I've posted a similar question a while back and still can't understand the answer to it, despite getting a lot of useful info close to the core of my question. So:
I have a pair of little Linux - based C++ MQ client applications, which communicate via the queue manager based on z/OS, using a couple of local queues. Now if I compile and build these same little apps on USS, would they still run in the same way?
The client layer imposes more network flows - for every MQ API call. Other than that, from the applications point-of-view, no change
I'm still having problems getting the C++ applications on Linux to work with MQ the way I want them to (I'm a novice both at MQ and z/OS), so I haven't yet tried to just run the stuff on USS - hopefully I'll do that later tonight. They do compile and link on USS without problems.
TIA,
--Anatol |
"I'm still having problems..." What problems are you having? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ivanachukapawn |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 561
|
| Note. The esteemed Grandmaster Jeff Lowrey (he posts too much) has stated that a client connection from a USS application to a Z/OS queue manager will not work (unless its WAS). However, the application could work with a binding connection to the Z/OS queue manager. If the connection is being established via MQConnectionFactory, this configuration would require a change from TransportType "Client" to TransportType "Binding". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
You really don't have to take *my* word for it. Among other things, I'm not a mainframe person.
I'm happy to be proved wrong, in this case, but I'm fairly sceptical that I *can* be proved wrong.
Particularly, I believe that bruce2359 posted a relevant section of the documentation that agrees with me.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
