| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| If Input and Output Node Name are same in MessageFlow |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| fatherjack |
 Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
Not disagreeing with anything you guys are saying about it being bad practice for all the reasons you suggest. Just saying that if you do it, it goes horribly wrong. So I'd say it was a bug as I don't believe (although I'm happy to be proved wrong) the documentation says don't do it because
| mqjeff wrote: |
| it introduces a production risk of unreliable behavior. |
And as a suggestion, if you absolutely shouldn't do it, then shouldn't the toolkit produce an error and prevent you from building the bar file. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mrgate |
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 141
Location: India
|
Hi All, we have tried the same case where we have used three nodes mqinput ---->compute--->mqoutput. all the three nodes having same name 'abc'. we are also getting the same result. but the qstatus type handle is showing that queue is serving two applications.
here is what the deployment descriptor contains.
- <Broker>
- <CompiledMessageFlow name="TESTING_INPUT_MF">
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#additionalInstances" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#commitCount" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#commitInterval" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#coordinatedTransaction" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#consumerPolicySet" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#providerPolicySet" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#consumerPolicySetBindings" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#providerPolicySetBindings" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#securityProfileName" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#monitoringProfile" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.additionalInstances" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.topicProperty" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.replyToQMgr" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.serializationToken" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.validateMaster" />
<ConfigurableProperty override="TESTING.INPUT.QL" uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.queueName" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.dataSource" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.replyToQ" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.resetBrowseTimeout" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.queueManagerName" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.componentLevel" />
<ConfigurableProperty uri="TESTING_INPUT_MF#abc.securityProfileName" />
</CompiledMessageFlow>
</Broker>
we have used TESTING.INPUT.QL and TESTING.OUTPTU.QL queues as input and output queues. I assume that no two nodes should have the same name(probably pmr should be raised in this case so that even node names are equal, separate tags can be created for both input and output nodes in deployment descriptor) or we can assume as if the input queue is mandatory, it is overriding the output queue property.
when two different names are given for input and output, separate xml tags are created in deployment descriptor.
we can find the above result using mqsireadbar command.
_________________
MQSeries terrorist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| fatherjack wrote: |
| And as a suggestion, if you absolutely shouldn't do it, then shouldn't the toolkit produce an error and prevent you from building the bar file. |
It would be lovely if that were the case, yes. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
