| Author |
Message
|
| fbaril3 |
 Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 6:14 am Post subject: MQSeries Workflow/ Process Choreographer WAS5 |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 53
|
Hello,
I am used to work with MQSeries Workflow.
A process choreographer is Included in WAS5 Enterprise
If anyone has used both products (MQWF and WAS5 choreographer) or has realized cases studies on both products, I am interested on your return/problems/comments .... etc !
What is according to you the positionning between both products ?
Do you have any "official" return of IBM on the subject ?
Thanks for your answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| ourtown |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2003 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 05 Feb 2002
Posts: 67
Location: Somerset, NJ
|
They are entirely seperate products
Process Choreographer has staffing and worklist handling but is only interested in WAS components - EJBs, JSPs, MDBs etc - it was developed by the IBM Boeblingen lab which is responsible for MQWF
I would see Process Choreographer as a stepping stone towards an MQWF implementation
IBM seems to be taking the approach that it is going to support multiple overlapping products - the cost of integrating its solutions would be prohibitive so they are likely only to attempt a similar look and feel
IBM is still restructuring in this area - the product suite is WebSphere Business Integration
Currently
MQWF is being renamed WebSphere Process Manager and is still the main way to handle workflow on multiple systems
HoloSofx is the WebSphere Business Integration Monitor
The HoloSofx modeller is also a Business Integration component
Crossworlds also has some workflow functionality
WebSphere Business Connection used to be PAM - partner agreement manager which also has some workflow functionality
There is also a Web Services WFDL/WSDL piece if you dont want the full Process Choreographer
_________________
Brian S. Crabtree
WBI Consultant |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2003 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
| ourtown wrote: |
| I would see Process Choreographer as a stepping stone towards an MQWF implementation |
Unfortunately, I disagree with this. It is my opinion, that IBM will phase out MQWF in favor of Process Choreographer. This is NOT going to happen quickly, but based on what I am hearing it sounds like where things are headed.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JLRowe |
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:41 pm Post subject: Comment found in white paper |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 664
Location: South East London
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| TJW |
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 16
Location: UK
|
If anyone can manage to squeeze the 100,000+ process activities a day I get with MQWF out of the Process Choreographer, without resorting to some seriously expensive hardware, then I may consider migrating to it  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
TJW:
Can you give us a breakdown on this? This might be really helpful to some of our users as an aid in their planning.
How many process instance create and starts per day>
How many activities run (I guess this is your 100000, but Im not certain)?
How many Human vs Upes activities?
What Version of MQWF?
What hardware?
THANKS
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| TJW |
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 16
Location: UK
|
This was something I worked on last year so I don't have the hard facts to hand, but here are some approximations:
Process instance create and starts per day: 10000
Average number of activities per day: 100000 (of which 99500 UPES and 500 user)
This was a highly automated system with users only handling the exceptions, so it would have been ideal for the Process Choreographer (if it can handle the volume).
It ran on a couple of quad processor F80 Unix boxes - although it would probably have run just as well on dual processor boxes as they were not being stressed. Workflow would have been 3.3 or 3.3.2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
