ASG
IBM
Zystems
Cressida
Icon
Netflexity
 
  MQSeries.net
Search  Search       Tech Exchange      Education      Certifications      Library      Info Center      SupportPacs      LinkedIn  Search  Search                                                                   FAQ  FAQ   Usergroups  Usergroups
 
Register  ::  Log in Log in to check your private messages
 
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support RSS Feed - Message Broker Support

MQSeries.net Forum IndexGeneral IBM MQ SupportMQ data structure alignment

Post new topicReply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2
MQ data structure alignment View previous topic :: View next topic
Would this be useful to you?
greatly
25%
25% [ 1 ]
some
0%
0% [ 0 ]
not a lot
0%
0% [ 0 ]
not at all
75%
75% [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 4
Author Message
fjb_saper
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:04 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20305
Location: LI,NY

Vitor wrote:
jojo2020 wrote:
The question then arose, if IBM presented the data structures as YAML then that would separate the model from the code. This would speed up development and reduce model tests & bugs.


Again, my 2 cents:

These MQ structures (especially the examples you've quoted) are low level and are inextricably linked to the code, to the point where byte alignment can matter. With this kind of structure (and this counts double for exits) you're right down on the metal, the model is the code and there's nothing human friendly about the environment.

As anyone who's written a dodgy exit and crashed a queue manager will confirm.

I don't see the value of using YAML for this kind of data description as it's another, additional, level of abstraction with no added benefits. That's not to say there isn't value, just that I'm not seeing it.

If IBM starts shipping YAML I won't use it, but I won't complain either. I would prefer IBM to devote their efforts to the laundry list of other things we've been complaining about for years.




Like I said, my 2 cents, other opinions are equally valid and may be better.

_________________
MQ & Broker admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bruce2359
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2020 7:37 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 8715
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

This seems to me to be a solution in search a problem. By design, and well-documented, IBM's MQ product is data-agnostic. Any, repeat ANY, type of data current or future may be transported as message payload content.

Would it be nice if MQ structures (MD, OD, CNO, ...) were name=value pairs - like XML, JSON, et.al.? Perhaps. But, what net value does this bring to the robust world of IBM's MQ product family?
_________________
My life flows on in endless song;
How can I keep from singing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gbaddeley
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:39 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi

Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2124
Location: Melbourne, Australia

jojo2020 wrote:
These guys have the MQ experience. Whilst learning about the code I saw that the model could be represented in a human friendly way.

I converted the cmqc* header files into YAML and a few of the structures that use them. The question then arose, if IBM presented the data structures as YAML then that would separate the model from the code. This would speed up development and reduce model tests & bugs.


I can imagine IBM having an internal "master" set of structure definitions that are used to generate the released header files and classes. Or, they steadfastly maintain and update each one of them, because of platform constraints on byte and word alignment, string representations, and sizes and endian of integers and pointers in 32 bit and 64 bit environments.

You could raise a Service Request with IBM to ask if they plan on releasing the structures in a modelling format (eg. YAML - yuck - after using Ansible I am definitely not a fan of YAML). Their response would be interesting.
_________________
Glenn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 8715
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

After all these years, I've finally become tolerant of XML. I've viewed some intro videos on YouTube on JSON and YAML - I am not amused.
_________________
My life flows on in endless song;
How can I keep from singing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gbaddeley
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2020 4:22 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi

Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2124
Location: Melbourne, Australia

bruce2359 wrote:
After all these years, I've finally become tolerant of XML. I've viewed some intro videos on YouTube on JSON and YAML - I am not amused.

After 20 years of using XML, I think it still beats JSON (a derivative of JavaScript specified by Doug Crockford). XML is quite verbose, but it has a strong foot hold. All our IIB interfaces use it.
_________________
Glenn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Post new topicReply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2 Page 2 of 2

MQSeries.net Forum IndexGeneral IBM MQ SupportMQ data structure alignment
Jump to:



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP


Theme by Dustin Baccetti
Powered by phpBB 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Copyright MQSeries.net. All rights reserved.