| Author |
Message
|
| mgk |
 Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:08 am Post subject: IIB V10 Released |
 |
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1638
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| kimbert |
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
Don't miss the 'Shared libraries' feature. Absolutely game-changing if you regularly edit/deploy large xsds ( whether for XML or DFDL ).
_________________
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way you're a mile away, and you have their shoes too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gaya3 |
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 2493
Location: Boston, US
|
Removal of the WebSphere MQ prerequisite - Can't believe this  (Service Integration Bus Coming...coming...  )
Shared libraries - one more WAS / Liberty profile feature perfectly blended.
More over the product is getting good and better ...
Thanks for sharing the details
_________________
Regards
Gayathri
-----------------------------------------------
Do Something Before you Die |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2602
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mgk |
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1638
|
| Quote: |
| Will there be a free developer edition again |
Yes, soon 
_________________
MGK
The postings I make on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
Will there be just a runtime kit?
All of our servers run windows but we do not want a Toolkit on them.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mgk |
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1638
|
| Quote: |
| Will there be just a runtime kit? |
No, but I'd be interested to know your underlying concern here. The single install is both faster and (a couple of GB) smaller that the V9 one, so disk is not normally an issue...
_________________
MGK
The postings I make on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
Ok, here goes.
The current situation is that our sites (all over the world) do not have any GUI other than MQExplorer on them. We ship the .bar files for deployment via scrips.
We do not want to have the ability to do any development on the fixed infrastructure at the customers. There are very good commercial reasons for this that I can't go into here.
Disk space is as you say, not an issue.
We could just delete the eclipse stuff then we would not be able to apply fixpacks so we are in a bit of a catch 22 situation.
Then you don't have development kits for say AIX so why exclude Windows and Linux from the old sitation where if you wanted a runtime, you could install it. To be honest and in the greater scheme of things, it does not take much time to install the runtime separately from the toolkit.
I do like the reduced time to install a combined dev & runtime but IMHO the one size fits all for windows and linux(on Intel) is a bit of a step backwards.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mgk |
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1638
|
OK, I understand and point taken. You do have a couple of options though. Firstly, as you say, you can delete the 'tools' directory after install. This would not stop you installing fix-pacs. With V10 all fixpacs will be a complete product image, and can be installed side-by-side with the previous version. For Windows, if you want a fixpac installed into the same folder, you will need to uninstall the previous version first and set the install folder in the "options" to be the folder of choice. For Linux (and all other platforms apart from Z) it is an "unzip" as there is no installer so again, you either "unzip" side-by-side or delete the old version and unzip the new one into the same location. The second option is to perform a command line (silent) install where (on Windows) there is an option (currently missing from the docs) to allow an install of everything apart from the Toolkit. On Linux you can unzip and -X exclude the "tools" folder from the unzipping process or unzip the lot and again delete the folder afterwards.
From our point of view, having a single package really helps with the simplicity of getting up and running, and hopefully these more advanced options will be enough to help you.
_________________
MGK
The postings I make on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| akil |
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 27 May 2014
Posts: 338
Location: Mumbai
|
This new version is absolutely brilliant ...
GDM, No-MQ, JSON Modelling, just what we need..
Would have loved to see Oracle procedure/package/ support for DatabaseServices... but I guess one has to wait for the good things
_________________
Regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5849
Location: UK
|
| akil wrote: |
This new version is absolutely brilliant ...
No-MQ |
So you prefer to lose your transactions then? Or perhaps you don't actually understand the concept of transactional integrity?
If you work for a bank, please tell me which one so I can keep my savings elsewhere.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| akil wrote: |
Would have loved to see Oracle procedure/package/ support for DatabaseServices... but I guess one has to wait for the good things |
Eh?
Broker has always had the ability to call Oracle Stored Procedures. I used it as far back as V2.0.2.
I'll also give a thumbs up to what my colleague Zpat has said about transactional support. Please tell us that you don't work for any sort of finanical institution.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mgk |
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1638
|
| Quote: |
| Would have loved to see Oracle procedure/package/ support for DatabaseServices |
The key point here is "DatabaseServices" (http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSMKHH_10.0.0/com.ibm.etools.mft.doc/bc46200_.htm?lang=en) which currently do not support stored procedures (please raise an RFE if you need this).
With regards to WMQ support in IIB V10, although we no longer have WMQ as a pre-req, we have actually enhanced the WMQ support we offer in IIB. For example, client connections, multiple QM support, multiple Nodes (brokers) per QM etc. IIB still comes with entitlement for WMQ, and anything that worked in V9 will still work with V10 so nothing has been removed. If you are doing XA transactions, then you still need WMQ to be the TM, and a few other scenarios also require WMQ as well (aggregation, collection, sequencing...). But what we also allow now is support for scenarios that do not need WMQ to work without a Broker QM, for example, HTTP to File etc where IIB still supports IIB-Coordinated transactions (one-phase) in these cases as it has always done.
So I see this as a big enhancement to our WMQ support as well as a simplification for simpler scenarios.
_________________
MGK
The postings I make on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| nelson |
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 02 Oct 2012
Posts: 313
|
| mgk wrote: |
With regards to WMQ support in IIB V10, although we no longer have WMQ as a pre-req, we have actually enhanced the WMQ support we offer in IIB. For example, client connections, multiple QM support, multiple Nodes (brokers) per QM etc. IIB still comes with entitlement for WMQ, and anything that worked in V9 will still work with V10 so nothing has been removed. If you are doing XA transactions, then you still need WMQ to be the TM, and a few other scenarios also require WMQ as well (aggregation, collection, sequencing...). But what we also allow now is support for scenarios that do not need WMQ to work without a Broker QM, for example, HTTP to File etc where IIB still supports IIB-Coordinated transactions (one-phase) in these cases as it has always done.
So I see this as a big enhancement to our WMQ support as well as a simplification for simpler scenarios. |
Is it so expensive to have a queue manager doing "nothing"?  IMHO there are still too many MQ dependencies (in non-MQ related operations) that your integration nodes seems kind of limited (or optimized?) without a queue manager associated to it .. At some point just a little timeout functionality, for example, will require you to associate a queue manager. I guess in the future IIB-MQ will be less coupled...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
. See here for what's new in this release:
