| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Pros & cons of Messaging using FTP, HTTP and MOM |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| ArvindC |
 Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:10 am Post subject: Pros & cons of Messaging using FTP, HTTP and MOM |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 25 Dec 2002
Posts: 14
Location: India
|
Hi all,
We have a requirement where we need to communicate to a number of legacy systems via messages. The legacy systems, which are on different platforms, will send a batch of messages to be processed by our system. The legacy systems are connected via a secure intranet.
The messages can be transported using ftp, http or a MOM (like MQSeries). While we prefer the MOM way, using MQSeries as it eases development and provides platform independence, the organizations using the legacy systems may not prefer it due to cost, limitation of their legacy system or some other reasons.
Could you let me know your thoughts and experiences on comparison of the above approaches and their pros and cons?
Thanks in advance for your help
-Arvind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| zpat |
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Using the free MQ clients can often remove the cost concerns. Clients are available for all platforms except OS/390.
Transactionality is a key feature of MQ. You can be sure that you will process each message once and only once. You can link database and message updates in a single unit of work.
However one thing you need to do is stop people thinking in "batch" mode where systems have to be taken down, extract files produced or imported etc.
The modern design is for systems to be continously available, producing or consuming event driven messages as they occur. It's a bit like using the telephone compared to sending letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ArvindC |
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 25 Dec 2002
Posts: 14
Location: India
|
| Quote: |
| Using the free MQ clients can often remove the cost concerns |
While I agree that clients are free, to achieve robustness the MQ server needs to be installed at both ends. This way the applications at both ends (or at least on all the legacy sides) are truly de-coupled from each other and the intranet communication link. The process is such that the legacy has to generate some information which we need to update into our system and while we can wait for fetching the information, the legacy systems needs to generate that data at the end of day at which they cannot wait for our system or the link to be available. So the thing is that the legacy systems store the information locally to be fetched by our system later.
I also agree that to get the real value of integration the updates should happen in real time rather than in a batch but the problem is that the organizations on the client side may not want to invest in such an infrastructure.
In my view, technology wise, a MOM like MQSeries is the best solution but then there are a number of organizations involved and cost and changes to the legacy application can be major deciding factors.
I am listing some of the factors for which I can present my case for a MOM.
1. Transactionality
2. Cost involved
3. Ease of integration
4. Integration simplicity
5. Robustness
6. Platform independence
7. Scalability
8. Adaptability
9. Ease of maintenance
I would to know you’re your experiences how and how much the factors differ when other ways of messaging like ftp, http are used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
