| Author |
Message
|
| RAJKAMAL |
 Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:14 am Post subject: MAKE a FLOW VISIBLE IN MORE THAN ONE EXECUTION GROUP |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 8
|
I HAve a requirement where i need to deploy a common flow in one EG.
Then The other EG should have access to the common flow without deploying it again the EG . Can you please help how to do that |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Have you considered using MQ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RAJKAMAL |
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 8
|
| thanks for your reply but using mq will increase the response time? is there any other way which we can use? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| RAJKAMAL wrote: |
| using mq will increase the response time? |
Marginally, but only marginally.
| RAJKAMAL wrote: |
| is there any other way which we can use? |
Yes, you can deploy the common flow to each EG. Code can't be shared between EGs (because EGs are the mechanism IBM supplies to assist us with isolating code) and if you're so tight on response time you can't stand even the maginal overhead of putting and getting a non-persistent message from a local queue then you need to swallow the administrative overhead of multiple copies of the common code.
It's all about what is your principle requirement.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bharathi.tech12 |
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:56 am Post subject: webservice |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 14 May 2013
Posts: 93
|
create the common flow and expose as soap/http service deploy it in EG and access it in all other EG.
is this way will work it out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:04 am Post subject: Re: webservice |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| bharathi.tech12 wrote: |
| create the common flow and expose as soap/http service deploy it in EG and access it in all other EG. |
Logically the same as using MQ. Still a marginal overhead and marginally less reliable / scaleable
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bharathi.tech12 |
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 14 May 2013
Posts: 93
|
| As per my understanding instead of using MQ Server(QM) +MB Server(EG), we can use only MB server(EG), it may reduce marginal overhead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| NealM |
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 230
Location: NC or Utah (depends)
|
| Quote: |
| As per my understanding instead of using MQ Server(QM) +MB Server(EG), we can use only MB server(EG), it may reduce marginal overhead. |
Dunno about the marginal size of the marginal reduction of the marginal time, but would like to point out that the HTTP nodes still involve MQ, so the only (marginal) savings might come if you used SOAP nodes..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| bharathi.tech12 wrote: |
| As per my understanding instead of using MQ Server(QM) +MB Server(EG), we can use only MB server(EG), it may reduce marginal overhead. |
The proposed solution (if I understand it correctly) is to send an MQ message from one flow to another and get a reply. As there is Message Broker involved at least one end then it (IMHO) falls within the bounds of the WMQ license supplied with Broker.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RAJKAMAL |
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 8
|
| thanks guys for your views, I think MQ will be more reliable option. Although SOAP will reduce the response time as only broker will be involved . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| RAJKAMAL wrote: |
| thanks guys for your views, I think MQ will be more reliable option. Although SOAP will reduce the response time as only broker will be involved . |
Where did you see that SOAP would reduce the response time? As told before any difference in runtime will be marginal and only relevant in a high volume + low latency environment... 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
