| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Spliting nodes to isolate errors |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| fabyos |
 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:27 am Post subject: Spliting nodes to isolate errors |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 37
|
Hi,
Currently I have a flow which is really simple
MQInput -> Compute Node -> MQOutput
However, the compute node does call procedures and parsing...
if I split the compute node in two, in order to deal with the specific error caused by call or parsing, this is a bad practice? there is performance concerns?
I'm thinking in pass it through OutputRoot to each other.
Why I want this? I want to caught the types of error and do different actions on it.
And, I tried to understand the explanation on infocenter about correlation names (OutputLocalEnvironment, Environment, and etc), but is wasnt really clear... what is the differences and when should I use each? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: Spliting nodes to isolate errors |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| fabyos wrote: |
| if I split the compute node in two, in order to deal with the specific error caused by call or parsing, this is a bad practice? |
Not especially; I'd question the need in the majority of circumstances but who am I to say you're in the majority?
| fabyos wrote: |
| there is performance concerns? |
Not really. I'd be more concerned (if that's the word) about maintainability by increasing the number of nodes. But not a serious issue.
I'm thinking in pass it through OutputRoot to each other.
| fabyos wrote: |
| I want to caught the types of error and do different actions on it. |
Fair enough.
| fabyos wrote: |
| I tried to understand the explanation on infocenter about correlation names (OutputLocalEnvironment, Environment, and etc), but is wasnt really clear... what is the differences and when should I use each? |
The forum search facility turned up this recent discussion on this subject.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fabyos |
| Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 37
|
Hey, thanks for the response and sorry for the late.
I think that maintenance will not be the problem, the flow is not so big... if I have a lot of subflows, labels and logic maybe.
I could only accomplish my requirements by using trycatch for each block and isolate the exception that is caught. I dont know if its the better way, but its the unique way that I find.
| Code: |
-> error -> error
input -> compute -> trycatch -> compute -> trycatch -> compute -> ... |
Currently I'm having to copy always the entire message because I need to put on queue the initial input message, and it is lost after the first node. I tried to use the (local)environment variables but the message put on queue is always empty... i could realize why and how to correct it. I was reading the Destionation list or things related to it to correct it didnt work.
Most of my doubts are related to how the broker handle with the flow created, but I dont know if there is some documentation that says something about it.
If I reuse the same node, it is better than use new nodes (I'm not concerned about the replication of configuration properties). I dont know if each node is an instance, and if I reuse it is better, or the result after compilation is the same as using different nodes. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
