| Author |
Message
|
| SAFraser |
 Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:35 am Post subject: How Old is MA88? |
 |
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
Please take a walk down memory lane with me.... and help me bring our application developers into the 21st century.
I've stamped my foot and said it's time to get rid of MA88 to support our JMS applications. (I've been saying it for five years, but I've just started the foot stamping.)
As I recollect, MA88 was introduced with MQ v5.0 (1997-ish). Then it was updated through several years, finally deprecated with.... v5.2 (2000)? Or v5.3 (2002)?
(Dates are from this wonderfully useful post: http://www.mqseries.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=45739.)
I've been telling management that we are using .jar files that are about 10 years old. Do you think that's a fair statement? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
I thought MA88 was integrated into V5.3 CSD something-or-other? But then, what do I know?
Cunningly leaving an opening for Vitor to demonstrate his razor sharp wit... 
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SAFraser |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
I think that's right. I think it came out in a 5.0 CSD-something-or-other and got replaced in the early 2000's.
What do you know? You know a lot, despite what Vitor says. Thanks for the reply.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
What does a dir of the jar's say? 
digging in some other archives I found this:
| Quote: |
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
It should be noted that the ability to download this SupportPac from this
site for the following platforms:
» AIX
» HP-UX
» OS/390
» Linux for iSeries
» Linux for zSeries
» Sun Solaris
» Windows
has been withdrawn, and the end of service date will be 31 December 2003
(except for iSeries and OS/390 for which it is 30 April 2004). For these
platforms, the function remains available shipped with the WebSphere MQ V5.3
product.
For the remaining platforms
» HP Tru64
» HP OVMS Alpha
» HP NSK
the end of service date for this SupportPac is 30 April 2005.
|
to further strengthen your case to get rid of it...
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SAFraser |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
| Michael! You are fabulous, thank you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| SAFraser wrote: |
What do you know? You know a lot, despite what Vitor says. Thanks for the reply.
|
Knowledge of cleaning is extensive....
Razor sharp wit slightly dulled today....
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
Shirley, these JMS apps, are they MQ Clients? Or are they running on the same server as the QM and using MA88 instead of the current local jars?
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SAFraser |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
Oh Peter, they are dreadful java applications that run separate from the MQ servers. The apps use WAS for their runtime, but they are so old that they do not use the MQ messaging provider in WAS. Instead, they have java code that uses JMS to put and get messages.
In defense, the application was originally designed for WAS 4.0 and it was probably a good design back then. But it hasn't been updated, and it should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| exerk wrote: |
I thought MA88 was integrated into V5.3 CSD something-or-other? But then, what do I know?
Cunningly leaving an opening for Vitor to demonstrate his razor sharp wit... |
AFAIK MA88 was introduced with V5.3 base and the MQ message broker was introduced with 5.3 CSD 06 or 08... 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| SAFraser wrote: |
Oh Peter, they are dreadful java applications that run separate from the MQ servers. The apps use WAS for their runtime, but they are so old that they do not use the MQ messaging provider in WAS. Instead, they have java code that uses JMS to put and get messages.
In defense, the application was originally designed for WAS 4.0 and it was probably a good design back then. But it hasn't been updated, and it should be. |
#1 Will they now use the WAS MQ messaging? (I know nothing about this so maybe that is not even a valid question)
#2 Or will you install the full MQ Client on each server and have them reference those jars?
#3 Or install a current MQ Client somewhere and copy those jars over where they are needed, basically making your own new "MA88"?
#3 is not officially supported, but it works*. I wonder what the reaction will be from the Java folks when you propose installing a full client on each of their servers just to get a few jars for option #2.
* The WMQFTE client says no MQ Client install needed, but its making client connections to a QM. Turns out all it uses are the MQ jar files if I understand it correctly. If so maybe we'll soon see a new MA88 or specific doc saying its OK to just copy the jars from an existing install. If its good enough for WMQFTE, why not for the rest of us?
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SAFraser |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
#1 Our recommendation is that they use WAS messaging. We are getting a lot of blank stares.
#2 Our minimum acceptable solution is a full client installation for them to reference. They are fighting this as though the sky is about to fall.
#3 They want us to just copy the jars. We are objecting to this because:
a) We'll have to wiggle a lot to get support from IBM.
b) The jars then get married to the application and it will be another ten years before we get them updated.
The WAS admins control the JDBC driver for database connections, as it is infrastructure. Seems to me that this is similar, an infrastructure function, especially when we are talking about an application server (not an end user's desktop) that connects to MQ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| SAFraser wrote: |
#3 They want us to just copy the jars. We are objecting to this because:
a) We'll have to wiggle a lot to get support from IBM.
b) The jars then get married to the application and it will be another ten years before we get them updated. |
My biggest objection to this is it makes WMQ "disappear" and applying maintenance requires a new version of the applicaton, with all the tstig cycles etc.
| SAFraser wrote: |
| Seems to me that this is similar, an infrastructure function, especially when we are talking about an application server (not an end user's desktop) that connects to MQ. |
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| SAFraser wrote: |
#1 Our recommendation is that they use WAS messaging. We are getting a lot of blank stares.
#2 Our minimum acceptable solution is a full client installation for them to reference. They are fighting this as though the sky is about to fall.
#3 They want us to just copy the jars. We are objecting to this because:
a) We'll have to wiggle a lot to get support from IBM.
b) The jars then get married to the application and it will be another ten years before we get them updated.
The WAS admins control the JDBC driver for database connections, as it is infrastructure. Seems to me that this is similar, an infrastructure function, especially when we are talking about an application server (not an end user's desktop) that connects to MQ. |
#1 ) should be the right decision but I would word it a little bit differently.
The recommendation is for them to use the WAS embedded WMQ Client as it provides XA connectivity to MQ. (At least with a somewhat current version of WAS (6.0 and above). ). I guess this means it contains it's own version of the Extended Transactional Client (etc).
Looking at WAS connectivity to WMQ and compatibility there is a nice IBM document that lays it out by version of WAS and WMQ. I know a link for this document was posted sometime back in a thread on the site, but it seems like I just can't find it now...
This way no additional jar files and replacement. Upgrades client wise come with the WAS upgrade.
Note that I purposefully avoided the name WAS messaging to avoid any confusion between WMQ and WAS messaging engine.
Have fun
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
