| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Message Broker Transformation |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| sraghukumar |
 Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:35 am Post subject: Message Broker Transformation |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Posts: 49
|
Hi All,
I am writing this because i am still confused which transformation is fast, relabel.
I understand there are 4 popular type of transformation in WMB. (ESQL, Java, Mapping, and XSL). I was wondering which is better one to use and why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:44 am Post subject: Re: Message Broker Transformation |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| sraghukumar wrote: |
| I am writing this because i am still confused which transformation is fast, relabel. |
They are all relabel (or as it's more typically spelt) reliable. WMB can be relied upon to do what you've instructed it to do.
| sraghukumar wrote: |
| I was wondering which is better one to use and why. |
It's a question of which is better for you. This has been the subject of much discussion in here which you could find useful. Here are some bullet points in no particular order and with no attempt to be exhaustive.
- ESQL is the native method of WMB and has access to all of WMB's functions in the most direct way. It requires a level of practice and retraining to use in the most effective way.
- Java exposes most of WMB's functions, and virtually all of them with a little dancing. It's less efficent in terms of speed & memory than ESQL, but if you have a site which has an existing base of Java coders the speed with which you'll start delivering and the money you save on training may outweigh that.
- Mapping is good where you have message sets for input and output, and the transformation is straightforward.
- XSLT is intended for sites which use XSLT currently, and are trying to transition. Like Java, if you have a lot of XSLT authors you might want to stick with it.
It all depends on your situation & requirements. It's possible to produce slow, inefficient and unreliable code using all 4 methods.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| joebuckeye |
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 365
Location: Columbus, OH
|
The standard IBM answer will be to use the method your team is most familiar with.
About the only reason to go against this advice is if you are under a real performance crunch and then you would probably need to do performance testing for your specific scenario to see which transformation method best meets your needs.
But, if you are under that much of a performance crunch do you really want to be coding your transformation in a method that your team is not familiar with? Not sure if people not familiar with a certain transformation method could produce a very efficient transformation.
You also forgot to mention WTX as a transformation method. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
