| Author |
Message
|
| rdg |
 Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:28 am Post subject: IIB Message Modelling Issues (presentation attached) |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 7
|
To anyone familiar with Message Broker and Message Sets and thinking about exploring IIB and Message Models, this information might be useful for you.
Also, I'd be interested in hearing any feedback from anyone working with IIB Message Models to-date - have you experienced some of these issues also?
Note: This information is not covering bespoke message formats traditionally modelled in MRM (now modelled in DFDL) specifically but focuses on the use of Message Models for hosting predefined message definitions e.g. import from WSDL, XSD, SAP system etc.
We have been told that all of these concepts / pain points will be true in the upcoming IIB release (App Connect) also.
If you are about to embark on a Message Broker to IIB conversion and you have an eclectic integration estate, I would highly recommend sticking with Message Sets and saving yourself a whole heap of potential trouble with Message Models.
I hope you find this information useful.
http://www.mqseries.net/files/ibm/RSC_IIB_Message_Modelling_Review_v0.6.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| timber |
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 747
|
| Thanks rdg - that's a really valuable piece of analysis. I suggest that you continue to work with IBM to get some of these issues fixed. I've experienced similar pain points, and will do the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rdg |
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 7
|
Thank you - please do... I am continuing to pursue on my end.
Current response to-date has been - there are no issues here / nothing to see / working as designed (one of my favourites) / there is value in the way it's been solutioned thus far (though no quotable benefits for us) / and... No one else is complaining!
I thought the fact that the product is tripping over its own limitations in places (one part of the development lab not synchronised with the changes in another) would be enough to admit this needs to be rectified.
Taken it up thus far at architecture level, moving onto offering managers in April. I will post back here on any progress made but not holding up much hope based on IBM reaction to-date. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 24921
Location: Ohio, USA
|
| rdg wrote: |
| I will post back here on any progress made but not holding up much hope based on IBM reaction to-date. |
I find your lack of faith in @timber disturbing..... 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BenThompson |
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 2
|
| Thanks Roberto and Tim. IBM and RS Components have been in touch discussing this great analysis and will continue to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
