| Author |
Message
|
| Maximus |
 Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:52 am Post subject: MQ Client 2.x connect to MQSeries 5.3? |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Posts: 57
|
Hi,
I would like to know if a MQ Client 2.x could connect to a MQSeries 5.3?
Also Could MQSeries 2.x channel (sender/receiver) be configured with MQSeries 5.3 channel (sender/receiver)?
Thanks for the help,
Maximus |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bbburson |
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 378
Location: Nowhere near a queue manager
|
| Yes. Last year during our upgrades from v5.2 to v5.3 we had lots of channels and clients of mixed versions connecting to our queue managers and had no problems with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Maximus |
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Posts: 57
|
Thanks for the info, but I'm talking about MQSeries 2.x (really old version) not 5.2. Did you had any connectivity problems between MQSeries 2.x and 5.3?
Regards,
Maximus
| bbburson wrote: |
| Yes. Last year during our upgrades from v5.2 to v5.3 we had lots of channels and clients of mixed versions connecting to our queue managers and had no problems with it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bbburson |
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 378
Location: Nowhere near a queue manager
|
| Maximus wrote: |
| Did you had any connectivity problems between MQSeries 2.x and 5.3? |
No direct experience with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JasonE |
| Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 03 Nov 2003
Posts: 1220
Location: Hursley
|
| FWIW *any* client should be able to talk to *any* server - As the connection starts up, negotiation takes place where each side lists what functionality it can provide, and the common functions are worked out. Obviously you cant use any new feature, but all existing functionality should work fine (and I believe would be treated as a defect in 5.3 if it didnt). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Maximus |
| Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Posts: 57
|
| JasonE wrote: |
| FWIW *any* client should be able to talk to *any* server - As the connection starts up, negotiation takes place where each side lists what functionality it can provide, and the common functions are worked out. Obviously you cant use any new feature, but all existing functionality should work fine (and I believe would be treated as a defect in 5.3 if it didnt). |
Thanks JasonE for the information  , I will give it a try. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
Jason, I was looking for something else and came across this in the FAQs at IBM:
[url]
http://www.developer.ibm.com/tech/faq/results/0,1322,1%253A401%253A407%253A1%253Amqjava,00.html#q1
[/url]
It doesn't specifically say client, making me wonder, can JAVA 5.3 clients talk to older QMs? 
| Quote: |
Q. Can I connect to a version 5.2 Websphere MQ manager using the Websphere MQ version 5.3 java classes?
A.The Websphere MQ Java classes are not backward compatible.
You cannot use the WMQ version 5.3 Java classes to connect to an WMQ 5.2 Queue Manager.
You can use the WMQ 5.2 Java classes (ma88) to connect to a 5.3 Queue Manager
|
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Hi Peter,
I have a java client that runs on an MQ v 5.3 machine and connects to a mainframe MQ 2.1 version.
However with the big disconnect in version and the messages not always being TEXT messages you may want to add an ASCII EBCDIC converter to your toolpack...
One way we got around some of the conversion problems was to declare the remote queue to the mainframe (running local v 5.3) with ccsid 500 in JMS. When we looked at the message on the Mainframe queue the JMS browser could read it as a text message and the cobol appl. did not need to do a get with convert.
Thanks
F.J.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JasonE |
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 03 Nov 2003
Posts: 1220
Location: Hursley
|
Peter - You do ask some good questions
I certainly meant base / C client with my statement, but looking through the Java product, it certainly seems to handle at least some of the differing FAP levels. I dont know how far back its been tested with though! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Back to Peter's question:
I don't know how the Java client would react if you have a mix of client and server versions on the same machine. What am I talking about versions, even a mix of CSDs might do it!
This could definitely give you a disconnect as some of the libraries (binaries) may point to the <MQ Series install>/bin directory.
Now if you get a mix of versions between <MQ Series install>/java/lib (see so, dll and other binaries (non jars) in there...) and <MQ Series install>/bin every guess is up in the air and java might not work at all.
My guess is you would have to synchronize client and server version and CSD levels on the same machine and then you should not have any problems using java or JMS.
F.J.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JasonE |
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 03 Nov 2003
Posts: 1220
Location: Hursley
|
You could not mix the jars so a java program using server bindings tries to connect to a queue manager running a different fixpack level than the Jars were for. This is because server bindings goes via JNI and hence has a reliance on the native shared library, and features of it.
Client bindings is different though, as the socket and all comms is dont within the JVM and hence as long as the jars are self consistent, you should be able to talk to anyone (even a server on the same machine at a different level), although what is officially supported is another question[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
