| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| client and ccdt and ... |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| mqjeff |
 Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
You can see the problem in general if the TM is connected to one queue manager, and the app is connected to a different queue manager, right?
Regardless of reconnection, the use of qmgr groups means that every connection attempt can be made to different queue managers.
This problem is less important in cases where you are using the QM itself as the TM - in that it doesn't have to necessarily connect to itself.
But with WAS, it is WAS that acts as the TM and not the qmgr.
This is also less important with databases, because databases that have multiple physical locations tend to behave much more like multi-instance qmgrs rather than a CCDT qmgr group - in that it's "the same" object at multiple locations rather than different objects at multiple locations.
Although things like Oracle clusters make this a bit more complicated as well - but the Oracle client tends to handle this in ways that the MQ client does not. The MQ client uses the CCDT only for name resolution and doesn't really implement HA functions or clustering functions. It's a 'thinner' client that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jcv |
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 411
Location: Zagreb
|
| I was under the impression that TM and app don't have to connect separately to RM (QM) in order to perform an XA transaction. They can pass a connection handle to each other, do they not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jcv |
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 411
Location: Zagreb
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Don't know if this RFE is as feasible as you think. You seem to be forgetting that the TM does need to connect to the RM (qmgr) in order to resolve in flight transactions that had not been resolved when WAS shutdown...
(Part of WAS startup sequence).
Have fun 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jcv |
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 411
Location: Zagreb
|
| I couldn't forget something I never knew, ie all the things TM is supposed to do. I don't have the slightest clue if it's feasible (I guess someone will tell me, or will not) but that what you mention looks feasible. The only thing that has to be developed in ETC is a method to check all possible qmgrs (as defined by ccdt) for a given transaction id. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jcv |
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 411
Location: Zagreb
|
| ... although, to store somewhere information about specific qmgr involved in transaction would be much more natural than checking more than is needed. May I ask you fjb_saper why do you think RFE is not feasible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
