| Author |
Message
|
| gakd1987 |
 Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 8:41 am Post subject: MQRFH2 header concept |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Aug 2013
Posts: 26
|
| I wanna understand MQRFH2 header and parser in a better way. I tried to go through the infocenter but it seems to vague and I dont find any close examples to understand it. Can someone please guide me to understand this concept and usage of MQRFH2 header? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
There is plenty of discussion in this forum about RFH2 headers.
Why not take advantage of then and if they don't satisfy you then by all means come back with specific questions.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
You should also consider strongly encouraging your applications to make sure they use message properties instead of the MQRFH2.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| You should also consider strongly encouraging your applications to make sure they use message properties instead of the MQRFH2. |
Noting that the OP has posted in the broker forum, and is talking about a parser, we can infer that the OP is still seeing an MQRFH2 even if the application is using message properties.
It would be nice if the OP had been clear enough that we didn't need to infer this, and had asked more specific questions than "I wanna (sic) understand"
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Oh, right. The broker forum.
Yes, I don't know if even V10 supports message properties directly, instead of forcing broker developers to work with an MQRFH2 header tree.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| I don't know if even V10 supports message properties directly, instead of forcing broker developers to work with an MQRFH2 header tree. |
My limited experimentation indicates an MQRFH2 in the message tree.
Anyone who knows if I'm accidentally using some kind of backwards - compatible default setting and/or knows better is welcome to comment at this point.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
what about all those legacy flows/applications then?
If you have any that use RFH2 then unless they are going to be upgraded to Message properties and AFAIK, you can do stuff with RFH2 that you can't in properties then people will still have to know about how RFH2 Headers work and are linked into a chain of headers and data.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
what about all those legacy flows/applications then?
If you have any that use RFH2 then unless they are going to be upgraded to Message properties and AFAIK, you can do stuff with RFH2 that you can't in properties then people will still have to know about how RFH2 Headers work and are linked into a chain of headers and data. |
Hence my comment. I know you can do this (and other related administrative actions) to make message properties turn up as an RFH2 for an application that's expecting one. I didn't find such a thing for IIB and got message properties as an MQRFH2 in the message tree, postulated that this may be a lack of knowledge on my part and asked the question.
As you indicate, it's a sensible default for IIB to use with regard to legacy flows. It will be nice when IIB can handle properties directly and that day may be now if someone knows better than me.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
