| Author |
Message
|
| t603 |
 Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:33 am Post subject: IIB 10 WebAdmin: Only some flows are rendered as in Toolkit |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 16 Oct 2012
Posts: 88
Location: Prague, the Czech Republic, Europe
|
Hello,
can I ask You, why some message flows are (SVG ?) rendered (looks like flow in Toolkit) in Operational Policy -> Node Policy and some message flows are not rendered? Is there any rule about it? Some property of BAR? Some switch like one enabled statistics?
BTW it is a great, really great new feature - rendering of flow in WebAdmin for me. Another great improvement would be to recieve a configuration of particular flow node and flow as a whole - the same content (but XML format  as is now outputing from "mqsireportproperties <node> -e <server> -o AllMessageFlows -r"
Regards, Stepan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Review how the bar files are built.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| t603 |
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 16 Oct 2012
Posts: 88
Location: Prague, the Czech Republic, Europe
|
| Quote: |
| Review how the bar files are built. |
Would be the answer necessary longer in case straight short answer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| t603 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Review how the bar files are built. |
Would be the answer necessary longer in case straight short answer? |
The more direct answer wouldn't be any longer or shorter. But it's your environment and I don't know remotely how your bar files are built. So I don't know for a fact that the issue you're seeing is caused by the options used to control the source files.
So a more direct answer would have been less likely to be correct.
And you still would have had to review the bar file build process.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| t603 |
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 16 Oct 2012
Posts: 88
Location: Prague, the Czech Republic, Europe
|
I am very sorry, mqjeff, I thought, that Your first answer was RTFM style answer and You already had know the solution of my problem.
OK, I will try to find the solution. I already had searched for the solution on IBM web, before I asked for the first time - no luck.
Well, regarding BARs, I guess, that it could or could not be the cause. But both BARS were created an deployed for WMB 7 (6, 4..) and by someone, not me. Anyway mqsireportproperties command can provide so many information for each message flow, which is sufficient for reverse engineering of the message flow - I am working quite intensively with mqsireportproperties http://http://www.mqseries.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=364679. That is why I am thinking, that some BAR property (like including of source code) is not necessary the root cause of providing visual diagram of message flow in IIB 10 WebAdmin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| t603 wrote: |
| (like including of source code) |
Well, it might not be. But it's a good place to start.
It's also a sketchy idea to deploy bar files built by MB v7 to an IIB v10 installation. Just because it should work, doesn't mean it's reliable.
A reverse engineering of the flow shouldn't be necessary, unless the customer has been extremely careless with their software development life cycle, or paid for a solution that did not include source.
That is, they should have the source, so you should be able to migrate it rather than reverse engineer it.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
It's also a sketchy idea to deploy bar files built by MB v7 to an IIB v10 installation. Just because it should work, doesn't mean it's reliable.
|
There are a number of things that work perfectly well in V7 that don't work in V10. So far all of the things I've found point to things being tightened up rather than actual bugs and I've found workarounds for them.
You can't rely in everything working OOTB (so to speak). I am doing some extensive testing just to bring these points to light.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| t603 |
| Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 16 Oct 2012
Posts: 88
Location: Prague, the Czech Republic, Europe
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| It's also a sketchy idea to deploy bar files built by MB v7 to an IIB v10 installation. Just because it should work, doesn't mean it's reliable. |
No, both (all) message flows are migrated withing WMB 7 to IIB 10 migrating procedure. They were not prepared in Toolkit 7 and deployed to IIB 10. And regarding source code - yes, we have almost each source codes and some newer BARs.
In general I do not like to investigate causes using (and later generalise by) try - catch approach - I like rather read documentation (found by at least Google-like search engine).
Yes, WMB 7 to IIB 10 migration is a challenge. We are doing it now.  But expectations are huge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
