| Author |
Message
|
| mqdev |
 Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:04 am Post subject: Best approach for PubSub - Native OR Integrator? |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 136
|
Hello,
We are currently discussing the various pros & cons of the PubSub options available. Ours is an MQ shop which has standardized on WebSphere MQ as the basic transport mechanism and we are currently at v6.0.2.0. We currently also have WMB v6.0 deployed which provides the PubSub functionality for a host of about 20 Apps. The Subs also include Filters. We have been tasked with investigating what it takes to get rid of Integrator and have primarily identified the need to provide PubSub (along with Filtering capability) as one of the basic functionality that needs to be developed independant of WMB. We have reseached the PubSub capability as provided by WebSphere MQ v6.x (so called Native PubSub) and here are the results:
1. Native PubSub is plain vanilla PubSub with no Filtering capability.
2. Search regarding Native PubSub on mqseries.net has thrown up some problems
3. Integrator based PubSub is a matured version of Native PubSub (please correct me if I am wrong here) with other value adds provided by the WMB.
My questions are:
1. Are there any advantages to Native PubSub as opposed to WMB based PubSub?
2. Is there a way to provide Filtering Capability in Native PubSub? If yes, links would be helpful.
3. Apart from Topics based Filters, what other advantages does a Integrator based PubSub provide over Native PubSub?
Thanks
-mqdev |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: Re: Best approach for PubSub - Native OR Integrator? |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
My personal view, other views equally valid, etc
| mqdev wrote: |
| 1. Are there any advantages to Native PubSub as opposed to WMB based PubSub? |
You don't need a WMB license
| mqdev wrote: |
| 2. Is there a way to provide Filtering Capability in Native PubSub? If yes, links would be helpful. |
Not the way WMB can.
| mqdev wrote: |
| 3. Apart from Topics based Filters, what other advantages does a Integrator based PubSub provide over Native PubSub? |
You've access to the full range of features within the WMB tool box, including advanced transformation, data enrichment, etc. Of course, if you've a simple message structure and basic requirements, that's not actually an advantage! 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqdev |
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: Re: Best approach for PubSub - Native OR Integrator? |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 136
|
Thanks for your quick response Vitor!
| Vitor wrote: |
My personal view, other views equally valid, etc
| mqdev wrote: |
| 1. Are there any advantages to Native PubSub as opposed to WMB based PubSub? |
You don't need a WMB license |
Actually this is the reason for this whole exercise. Other then the licensing fee, are there any Techincal advantages of Native PubSub over WMB PubSub?
| Vitor wrote: |
| mqdev wrote: |
| 2. Is there a way to provide Filtering Capability in Native PubSub? If yes, links would be helpful. |
Not the way WMB can.
|
I haven't come across any mechanism wherein Filtering can be provided with Native PubSub. Any info in this regard would be appreciated. Changing 20 odd Apps to ignore messages they dont need to process (ie realizing Filter functionality within the Target App) is NOT an option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: Re: Best approach for PubSub - Native OR Integrator? |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqdev wrote: |
| Actually this is the reason for this whole exercise. |
How did I guess that?? 
| mqdev wrote: |
| Other then the licensing fee, are there any Techincal advantages of Native PubSub over WMB PubSub? |
It's easier to scale pub/sub on WMB than on WMQ. As I indicated earlier, this is only an advantage if you need to scale your pub/sub.
| mqdev wrote: |
| I haven't come across any mechanism wherein Filtering can be provided with Native PubSub. |
Nor have I! Be aware I've very limited experience with Native pub/sub; most implementations have either had WMB for other reasons or ended up buying WMB to do the pub/sub.
| mqdev wrote: |
| Changing 20 odd Apps to ignore messages they dont need to process (ie realizing Filter functionality within the Target App) is NOT an option. |
So it comes down to cost of WMB license against cost of changing & maintaining 20 odd apps with filter capability.
Enjoy yourself with the cost/benefit case.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqmatt |
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Hursley, UK
|
| mqdev, perhaps you might want to ask that question again in a couple of weeks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqmatt wrote: |
| mqdev, perhaps you might want to ask that question again in a couple of weeks. |
Ooooo......... 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqdev |
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 136
|
| mqmatt wrote: |
| mqdev, perhaps you might want to ask that question again in a couple of weeks. |
mqmatt - would you mind elaborating? Is something in the works @ Hursley? Off course I dont expect you to reveal internal details but a general hint would help a lot. OR do you mean this more from user experience perspective (use one approacah for a couple of weeks so you can appreciate how good/bad the other approach is...)
Am curious as to what you mean....
Thanks
-mqdev |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bower5932 |
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Aug 2001
Posts: 3023
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
|
| mqmatt wrote: |
| mqdev, perhaps you might want to ask that question again in a couple of weeks. |
Is this a subtle way of telling people to attend the IMPACT conference? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| bower5932 wrote: |
| mqmatt wrote: |
| mqdev, perhaps you might want to ask that question again in a couple of weeks. |
Is this a subtle way of telling people to attend the IMPACT conference? |
Matt is known for his subtlety.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| clon |
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 9
Location: London
|
We're going through the same exercise.
Have done some tests using our messages on both types of broker woth no real difference noted.
The only problem I have encountered is that once I've run a WBI broker if I want to run a native MQ one on the same machine I have to delete the WBI stuff rather than just stop it otherwise can't use the topics tab in the MQ explorer GUI. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqdev |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: Re: Best approach for PubSub - Native OR Integrator? |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 136
|
Vitor,
| Vitor wrote: |
| It's easier to scale pub/sub on WMB than on WMQ. As I indicated earlier, this is only an advantage if you need to scale your pub/sub. |
Why isn't Native PubSub as scalable as WMB? Can we home grow a piece of software to surmount this difficulty?
Thanks,
mqdev |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Broker was designed to perform better than WMQ pub/sub.
No, you can't overcome this with your own homegrown software, without writing your own homegrown pub/sub engine, in which case you shouldn't bother with either of the existing ones. But don't bother with a home grown solution!
Ask again in a few weeks.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqdev |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 136
|
Wow! That was quick Jeff - thanks a ton!
I have made a note to ask the same Q in a few weeks time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
