| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| Java program launch: UPES vs. JHPB |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Ratan |
 Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 10:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 1245
|
Vladimir,
If you see the conceptual Idea behind PEA and UPES, I think you will be able to understand that PEA is really a client side component and UPES is a server side component. Your question of "JHPB Vs UPES" is really a "PEA Vs UPES" because JHPB is infact a PEA with some additional features for 'High Performance'.
I dont think you can use a UPES and JHPB interchangeably. So the very question of 'UPES Vs JHPB' should not arise in the first place. For server side processing (Thin Client), as far as I understand, there is no better way than UPES. For a Fat Client Implementation PEA (JHPB) is definetly looks like a better solution.
-Laze |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vladimir |
| Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Nov 2002
Posts: 73
Location: USA, CA, Bay Area
|
| lazeknight wrote: |
| ...Your question of "JHPB Vs UPES" is really a "PEA Vs UPES"... |
Not really.  My original question is more like "How it is better to launch Java code inside WF: using UPES or JHPB?" 
| lazeknight wrote: |
| ...I dont think you can use a UPES and JHPB interchangeably... |
Exactly these things I am trying to find here: Why can't I do this?
| lazeknight wrote: |
| For ...Thin Client... |
Sorry, I forgot to mention - we are using Ultra-thin client design.
| lazeknight wrote: |
| ...For server side processing ... there is no better way than UPES... |
Is it really true? That's my actual question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ratan |
| Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 1245
|
| Vladimir wrote: |
| lazeknight wrote: |
| ...Your question of "JHPB Vs UPES" is really a "PEA Vs UPES"... |
Not really. My original question is more like "How it is better to launch Java code inside WF: using UPES or JHPB?" |
If you want Server Side Processing there is no better way than UPES. If you are doing a Fat client implementation JHPB definetly looks promising (dont forget that JHPB is just a PEA, which will keep your JVM loaded across activity implementations  ). 
| Vladimir wrote: |
| lazeknight wrote: |
| ...I dont think you can use a UPES and JHPB interchangeably... |
Exactly these things I am trying to find here: Why can't I do this?
|
Forget JHPB, why did you not choose PEA and used UPES instead? The same reason holds good here.
| Vladimir wrote: |
| lazeknight wrote: |
| For ...Thin Client... |
Sorry, I forgot to mention - we are using Ultra-thin client design.
|
Well, Ultra-thin is what I meant by Thin ( do you know if anybody uses the IBM documented Thin Client  )
So as you use Ultra-thin, UPES wins the race.
| Vladimir wrote: |
| lazeknight wrote: |
| ...For server side processing ... there is no better way than UPES... |
Is it really true? That's my actual question. |
[/quote]
It most certainly is. Again, why did you use UPES in the first place? 
IBM most certainly documented the fact about using an UPES or an application like MQSI for server side processing. I dont remember which document, but try the Programming Guide. 
-Laze |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vladimir |
| Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Nov 2002
Posts: 73
Location: USA, CA, Bay Area
|
| lazeknight wrote: |
| If you want Server Side Processing there is no better way than UPES... |
All I am trying to create is a list of exact reasons why UPES (or JHPB) is better. The only thing I have in the list (thanks to jmac ) for now - is "UPES based activity can be part of WF transaction". I haven't verified it yet, but if it is true and there is no workaround - it is 1:0 for UPES and that's it so far.
| lazeknight wrote: |
| ...IBM most certainly documented the fact about using an UPES or an application like MQSI for server side processing. I dont remember which document, but try the Programming Guide... |
I can't find anything saying "UPES is the recomemended way to go". That's why I am trying to gather others opinion and experience here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
1. If you are using a thin client then I can give you another argument against PEA.
If you are using a thin client where would your PEA run --on client? on server? on some other machine?
May be not on client (if you are talking about a thin client)
On server/some other machine ---> How would you start/stop the PEA. Do you want to run it perpetually? If the number of users grow think of how resource intensive it would be to keep all the PEAs running.
2. Platform support: Is a client supported on Solaris, OS/2? I know it is on AIX and HP-UX. I don't know about the other two. Since MQ can talk the langauge of 40 platforms, UPES also can be implemented on these platforms. UPES rocks.
---
Venny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vladimir |
| Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2002 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Nov 2002
Posts: 73
Location: USA, CA, Bay Area
|
| vennela wrote: |
| ...where would your PEA run --on client? on server? |
On the WF server.
| vennela wrote: |
| How would you start/stop the PEA. |
It will be running as a service. Some monitoring tool will start it if it is not running by some reason.
| vennela wrote: |
| Do you want to run it perpetually? |
Yes.
| vennela wrote: |
If the number of users grow think of how resource intensive it would be to keep all the PEAs running.
|
It will be one single instance running.
| vennela wrote: |
| 2. Platform support: Is a client supported on Solaris, OS/2? |
Client is Web-based UI. And our WF is running under Win2k (or AIX in future).
| vennela wrote: |
| UPES rocks. |
Will see...
I know it's more flexible, no questions, but everything that it is more flexible is more expensive in terms of resources to design/create/launch/maintain. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
