| Author |
Message
|
| venusboy |
 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 51
|
So I think my question is:
1. Is this a new feature in the JMS that is supplied with WMQ v6 or has it always been there. If it is new, can some point me to the release notes that explains this difference?
2. This is only for the JMS API, other applications that use the .net client and the native MQ API will not be effected (i.e. with these you must code the BOQ/DLQ features).
Thanks in advance for your help.
Tom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| venusboy wrote: |
1. Is this a new feature in the JMS that is supplied with WMQ v6 or has it always been there. If it is new, can some point me to the release notes that explains this difference?
|
Is this a true, standalone, Java app?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| venusboy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 51
|
Vitor - Sorry you are quite correct, its been a very long day / week.
So am I getting really confused and there is not a problem?
The reason the message went on the DLQ (once we sorted out the permissions) (and there was no BOQ define for the queue )the DLQ reason was:
"backout threshold was exceeded" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| venusboy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 51
|
| This is a standalone Java app running on various platforms. The code hasn't changed in years, only change is V6 jars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| venusboy wrote: |
the DLQ reason was:
"backout threshold was exceeded" |
What code is that?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| venusboy wrote: |
| This is a standalone Java app running on various platforms. The code hasn't changed in years, only change is V6 jars. |
If it's a change, it's news to me but then I'm not a Java person. AFAIK this was only ever done in JMS running under J2EE / app server by the server itself
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| venusboy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 51
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| venusboy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 51
|
| Agreed, when I used to use WAS this was an inbuilt feature (well you could configure it to do what you wanted). But this is a stand-alone app, and I may want it not to get rid of the message. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| venusboy wrote: |
| Agreed, when I used to use WAS this was an inbuilt feature (well you could configure it to do what you wanted). But this is a stand-alone app, and I may want it not to get rid of the message. |
Well, like I said I'm not a Java person so I don't think you're going to get much more out of me.
Except to point out that such messages have not been "got rid of", and it would be a trival task to set a rule to move messages with that distinctive code off the DLQ onto the queue of your choice.
Or actually set a backout queue and bypass the problem.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| venusboy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 51
|
| I 'assumed' this was now performing like WMB, i.e. if you didn't have a BOQ defined, then it would put it on the DLQ? As am quite sure the return code is the same. That is why I may be getting confused with BOQ and DLQ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| venusboy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 51
|
| Its never that simple.... Need to keep the order etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| venusboy wrote: |
| Its never that simple.... Need to keep the order etc. |
Message affinity is never good, for this kind of reason.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JosephGramig |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1244
Location: Gold Coast of Florida, USA
|
Vitor,
So you see that it is PFM from the JMS library that is doing the application logic of backout (same as what you get with a MDB).
venusboy,
This is a demonstration of why every input queue to your JMS apps should have backout queues. The DLQ is for the QMGR to use and the MQ Admin will not like you much when they get paged at 3AM for your application messages going into the DLQ for some app reason.
This link seems to indicate a way to turn off the backout feature.
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wmqv6/v6r0/topic/com.ibm.mq.csqzaw.doc/uj33550_.htm?resultof=%22%62%61%63%6b%6f%75%74%22%20
_________________
Joseph
Administrator - IBM WebSphere MQ (WMQ) V6.0, IBM WebSphere Message Broker (WMB) V6.1 & V6.0
Solution Designer - WMQ V6.0
Solution Developer - WMB V6.1 & V6.0, WMQ V5.3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| JosephGramig wrote: |
Vitor,
So you see that it is PFM from the JMS library that is doing the application logic of backout (same as what you get with a MDB). |
MDB = Message Driven Bean, J2EE thing right?
PFM = ???
(Not Java person you see)
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| venusboy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 51
|
Thanks for all your help. I totally agree with all your points, but this is not an ideal world sometimes we inherit systems... and its me who would be called out at 0300... regardless of it being the DLQ or a BOQ.
We now have ensured that each queue has its own back-out queue, as in the past I thought that it was only JMS App servers or JMS listeners that would implement the BOQ features, not a standard JMS get.
So from this I conclude, that standard alone Java JMS apps have always implemented the backout feature. For me that is the important point, its the same as v5.
Also thank you for the how to turn off the back-out queue feature, which I should have remembered...
As always thanks mqseries.net and all who serve, sadly its better than IBMs PMR/Customer help, but I suppose you guys are in the field. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
