| Author |
Message
|
| JoePanjang |
 Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:38 pm Post subject: MQ to LU0 |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 10 Jul 2002
Posts: 88
Location: Dengkil MALAYSIA
|
Hi
Can MQ (or WMB) talk directly to CICS LU0 protocol? Anyone has experience working on this - direct or indirectly how is the approach?
Tks, Joe
_________________
Every good deed is charity... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:48 am Post subject: Re: MQ to LU0 |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| JoePanjang wrote: |
| Can MQ (or WMB) talk directly to CICS LU0 protocol? |
AFAIK no, but I'll stand correction on this from anyone with greater experience in the CICS arena.
It should be possible to bridge from MQ to LU0 from LU6.2 or IMS. Or similar. Should be.
Do let us know how you get on.... 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Last edited by Vitor on Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
Didn't think anyone used LU0 any more. But if you need to communicate from MQ to LU0 then as vitor says you'll need some sort of bridge. And if you'r ehaving to build this yourself it might be better just to replace your LU0 code with MQ code.
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| fatherjack wrote: |
| Didn't think anyone used LU0 any more." |
A quick google search for 'ibm+lu0' yields quite a bit about LU0 connectivity.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| fatherjack wrote: |
| Didn't think anyone used LU0 any more." |
A quick google search for 'ibm+lu0' yields quite a bit about LU0 connectivity. |
Indeed it does. Most of which is very very old.
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
But apparently alive and well.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| But apparently alive and well. |
Or dying a slow and painful death.
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| fatherjack wrote: |
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| But apparently alive and well. |
Or dying a slow and painful death. |
Or not dying at all. You can find some very old stuff about COBOL, and people have been predicting The Death Of COBOL since the mid-1980s, but it just keeps rolling along.
It's a key difference to the distributed platforms, where stuff comes and goes, but mainframe has all this old stuff hanging round in odd corners of the industry. That's just an observation not a criticism or a discussion point.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| You can find some very old stuff about COBOL |
And lots of stuff about dinosaurs. Doesn't mean they're still around. And you can find lots of new new stuff about COBOL as well, cos it is still around. But LU0 ?
From what I recall this was some early basic program to program communication protocol that was largely replaced by LU6.2 many moons ago.
I'm not saying it's not still out there, It clearly is given the post. But I'm just expressing a bit of surprise that someone thinks a software vendor might have thought it commercially viable to build an MQ-LU0 bridge.
Given the amount of 'Oh! My God! You're surely not still on a version of MQ thats more than a couple of years old' type posts we see here, not least from yourself Sir Vitor, I thought I might see a little more support in favour of a migration away from LU0.
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
My curiosity lead me to ibm.com, where a search for LU0 yielded far more contemporary results (z/OS 1.9-ish), including J2EE-compliant connectors, and JCA LU0 sample code.
It seems that LU0 isn't dead yet.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JoePanjang |
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 10 Jul 2002
Posts: 88
Location: Dengkil MALAYSIA
|
All - many thanks for the replies. Planning to meet our local ibm team next wk for further advice.
Regards,
Joe
_________________
Every good deed is charity... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| fatherjack wrote: |
| Given the amount of 'Oh! My God! You're surely not still on a version of MQ thats more than a couple of years old' type posts we see here, not least from yourself Sir Vitor, I thought I might see a little more support in favour of a migration away from LU0. |
LU0 is still officially supported. Old versions of WMQ are not.
If the LU0 software installed on the machine in question, I'd recommend an upgrade. If the COBOL in use was OS/COBOL I'd recommend moving to LE/COBOL.
I'd don't recommend moving off LU0 any more than I recommend moving from VSAM KSDS to DB2. It's not to say a case could not be made for such a migration, but using VSAM in place of DB2 is clearly justifible. Using WMQv5.3 is not.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
