| Author |
Message
|
| orman |
 Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:36 pm Post subject: SOAP over jms use |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Aug 2013
Posts: 40
|
Hey all
Lately we started investigating the SOAP node using the JMS transport
I want to understand when should we use it and what is the benefit instead using native MQ node
Does it have benefit using communication between two brokers?
It is the only senrio for now that use this one and no jms applications
So, what is your opinion?
Thanks, Or [/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:56 am Post subject: Re: SOAP over jms use |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| orman wrote: |
| I want to understand when should we use it and what is the benefit instead using native MQ node |
When you have something that speaks JMS better than it speaks native MQ. Most Java applications fit into this category.
| orman wrote: |
| Does it have benefit using communication between two brokers? |
Not especially. Brokers speak native MQ quite well so if all you're trying to do is pass data between them you could use that with a lot less effort. If you happened to have a use case that gave the SOAP Envelope and Headers value then of course you could use it if you wanted to, in the same way you could pass data between 2 brokers using SOAP over HTTP.
The decision between SOAP over HTTP & SOAP over JMS doesn't change, no matter how many brokers are in the mix.
| orman wrote: |
| It is the only senrio for now that use this one and no jms applications |
So are you saying that currently you only use SOAP over JMS to communicate between 2 brokers?
- why was it designed that way originally?
- do those design decisions still hold true?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| orman |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:18 am Post subject: Re: SOAP over jms use |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Aug 2013
Posts: 40
|
First of all , thanks for response.
| Vitor wrote: |
| orman wrote: |
| It is the only senrio for now that use this one and no jms applications |
So are you saying that currently you only use SOAP over JMS to communicate between 2 brokers?
- why was it designed that way originally?
- do those design decisions still hold true? |
What I mean is that we do not use it at all, no for JMS applications and no broker using it
As part of research and development we decided to use it between two brokers
It was design like this because of thought that it will be useful for applications and better using this node with WSDL instead MQInput
and now we discovered that it make us deal with configurations, conversion of JMSheaders, correlation of message , reply and more ...
So, it makes me ask the quest, is it true to use it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:49 am Post subject: Re: SOAP over jms use |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| orman wrote: |
| It was design like this because of thought that it will be useful for applications and better using this node with WSDL instead MQInput |
Which is a valid point. What I was trying to ask is why use SOAP over JMS rather than SOAP over HTTP?
| orman wrote: |
| and now we discovered that it make us deal with configurations, conversion of JMSheaders, correlation of message , reply and more ... |
Yes it does, and WMB can do all of this. It's more traditional (as I indicated above) to do this in a Java app where much of this comes "out of the box"
| orman wrote: |
| So, it makes me ask the quest, is it true to use it |
It's true that SOAP over JMS is a valid choice for a variety of use cases, especially if you're talking to a Java app. If the administrative overhead and additional code you're incuring is, in your opinion, not worth the benefits then you should consider SOAP over HTTP. If it is, you should stick with SOAP over JMS.
Horses for courses.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:59 am Post subject: Re: SOAP over jms use |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| orman wrote: |
and now we discovered that it make us deal with configurations, conversion of JMSheaders, correlation of message , reply and more ...
So, it makes me ask the quest, is it true to use it |
Well it all depends. Are you using the SOAP node with the JMS transport property set up or are you using an MQInput node...?
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| orman |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: SOAP over jms use |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Aug 2013
Posts: 40
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| orman wrote: |
and now we discovered that it make us deal with configurations, conversion of JMSheaders, correlation of message , reply and more ...
So, it makes me ask the quest, is it true to use it |
Well it all depends. Are you using the SOAP node with the JMS transport property set up or are you using an MQInput node...? |
Most of our flows using MQInput and SOAP nodes over HTTP
Using the SOAP over JMS is new for us and that's why it makes us to custom and configure it from the beginning .. so it mean that firstly we wont cover all the options of it , maybe like exceptions , replying message .. you got my point .. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2015 4:27 am Post subject: Re: SOAP over jms use |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| orman wrote: |
Most of our flows using MQInput and SOAP nodes over HTTP
Using the SOAP over JMS is new for us and that's why it makes us to custom and configure it from the beginning .. so it mean that firstly we wont cover all the options of it , maybe like exceptions , replying message .. you got my point .. |
So, if I have this correctly, you're trying to replace "native" MQ messaging that you currently exploit with an MQInput node with SOAP over JMS?
I repeat my comments above. If what's sending the message is a Java app with native JMS capabilities it makes sense to use JMS as a transport layer. If what's sending the message is not Java, then they won't thank you for this change at all.
It does mean there's more to deal with. That's the price you pay. I've spoken before about the value proposition, and the choice you need to make. Vis:
| orman wrote: |
| It was design like this because of thought that it will be useful for applications and better using this node with WSDL instead MQInput |
Do you still think it's "better" now you have a greater understanding of the work involved? "yes" is of course a valid answer. Do you think that a WSDL offers appropriately greater benefits than (say) an MQInput node that validates against an XSD?
Choices, choices.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2015 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
It all depends on what other features you are going to use, like ws-security, ws-addressing etc... For these it will probably be more advantageous to use SOAP over JMS than an MQInput node...
Just start with the SOAPInput as stopping the flow and inspecting the message on the queue will show some of the mandatory properties on the message when using SOAP over JMS. 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| orman |
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Aug 2013
Posts: 40
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
Just start with the SOAPInput as stopping the flow and inspecting the message on the queue will show some of the mandatory properties on the message when using SOAP over JMS. |
Yea, we started doing this , was makes us to do R&D for this feature
and as I know we won't cover all the gaps that we will meet on Prod
And Vitor , thanks for reply - we will think it again and decide what how to deal with this issue |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Yoel |
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 17
|
| Quote: |
It all depends on what other features you are going to use, like ws-security, ws-addressing etc... For these it will probably be more advantageous to use SOAP over JMS than an MQInput node...
Just start with the SOAPInput as stopping the flow and inspecting the message on the queue will show some of the mandatory properties on the message when using SOAP over JMS. |
Does anyone have experience with the new "MQ Service" introduced in IIB v9?
It should combine both advantages of native MQ and WSDL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Yoel wrote: |
| It should combine both advantages of native MQ and WSDL. |
I think you're mixing your terms. IIBv9 introduced Services as a 3rd choice for code beside Applications & Libraries. It also introduced MQ Services as a way of "packaging" MQ details.
Neither of these automagically handle headers the way the OP is looking for.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Yoel |
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 17
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Things you learn... 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
