| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| ia7c |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| tom_1234 |
 Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:02 am Post subject: ia7c |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 4
|
What is ia7c. or ia81? It is just like a service pack or any kind of patch.
Can any body tell me about this. How to install in my MB6. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| WMBNJ |
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| goffinf |
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:19 am Post subject: Re: ia7c |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 401
|
| tom_1234 wrote: |
What is ia7c. or ia81? It is just like a service pack or any kind of patch.
Can any body tell me about this. How to install in my MB6. |
IA81 was/is really just a set of eSQL functions to assist in [de]serialising SOAP 1.1 messages. It doesn't provide any more support for web service implementations than that. IMO I wouldn't waste much time on it unless all you want to do is wrap XML messages in a SOAP 1.1 Envelope. We looked at it a long while ago and found that not only was it very limited but in some places it was not compliant to the SOAP 1.1 spec.
I believe IA90 provides specific Message Broker node for extracting the business payload from inbound SOAP messages (immediate child of the soap:Body element) and another node for creating the SOAP Envelope wrapper for outbound messages. Although I haven't looked at it, I suspect that this is still a long way short of web service support. For that, there may be some better news in 6.1 slated for Q4 2007.
Fraser. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
I gues it depends on what you consider to be "web services support".
I suppose one could claim that the only valid basis for "web services support" is a stack that fully and completely supports every single WS-* standard.
But you'd be about the only person on the planet to believe that.
Broker is intended, designed, and architected as the basis for an Advanced ESB. This means that it is necessarily and correctly short on features that might be critical for services that are expected to interact nicely with humans - like WS-Security and etc.
This is not to say that the web services support in v6 as it is is perfect, or that there isn't room for improvement, and that v6.1 won't show a lot of that improvement.
But one needs to always keep in mind when one is using a product for what's it meant for, and one is trying to, for example, shoe-horn in a full web server or app server environment into something that is intended mostly for routing& transformation.
At least if one is actually attempting to architect at the enterprise level, rather than trying to design the enterprise as if it was a really big application.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| goffinf |
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 401
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| I gues it depends on what you consider to be "web services support". |
More than just [de]serialisation of angle brackets !
| jefflowrey wrote: |
I suppose one could claim that the only valid basis for "web services support" is a stack that fully and completely supports every single WS-* standard.
But you'd be about the only person on the planet to believe that. |
Indeed. But there are a [small] core set of WS standards which most of us implementing non trivial SOAs require and certainly wouldn't want to reimplement in Mb. This is all about using the right tool for job and separation of concerns. I note that IBM is intending support for at least 2 of the principle WS standards in 6.1.
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| Broker is intended, designed, and architected as the basis for an Advanced ESB. |
Well now Jeff, agreement on what constitutes and ESB, let alone one that has 'advanced' features is far from universal. I know that IBM has assigned this label to MB and was talking to some of the guys down in Hursley about it only a week or so back, but that definition is partly 'IBM speak' and partly marketing. I'm sure if you take a look on Developerworks, you'll find more than one definition !
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| This means that it is necessarily and correctly short on features that might be critical for services that are expected to interact nicely with humans - like WS-Security and etc. |
Not sure what you mean about interacting nicely with humans - like WS-Security ? There isn't any human workflow in MB and WS-Security doesn't require it, its just a specification of what security credentials look like on the wire and the behaviours around processing them ?
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| This is not to say that the web services support in v6 as it is is perfect, or that there isn't room for improvement, and that v6.1 won't show a lot of that improvement. |
Lets face it, there really isn't very much there right now beyond serialising SOAP.
| jefflowrey wrote: |
But one needs to always keep in mind when one is using a product for what's it meant for, and one is trying to, for example, shoe-horn in a full web server or app server environment into something that is intended mostly for routing& transformation.
At least if one is actually attempting to architect at the enterprise level, rather than trying to design the enterprise as if it was a really big application. |
I couldn't agree more, and this was the comment I was making to you in another post. Right tool for the job, separation of concerns, layering, et al. Thats why I find it interesting that IBM have chosen to put more into 6.1, but I hope that it will at least reuse the stack already available separately in WAS.
Fraser. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
