| Author |
Message
|
| mastanr |
 Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:31 am Post subject: New to MQSeries |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10
|
Hello:
I am very new to MQSeries and I need your suggestion how to implement it. I am working on a java project and we are having a MQSeries on Mainframe host. Java program need to talk to MQSeries and get messages. This will request/reply messaging.
My question is do I really need MQServer or MQClient on Application server to talk to MQServer on Mainframes? OR I can use MQ API to connect to Host MQseries?
Thanks in advance.
Mastan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
You can only talk to the mainframe if the mainframe has installed something called the Client Connection Facility. This is an extra charge item, so the mainframe group may not have purchased it.
You may be a lot better off working with a local MQServer, and establishing server to server connectivity, for a number of reasons.
1) It's probably less expensive long term.
2) It's a lot easier to work out the mainframe security for the server connection than it will be for all of the clients using your java application.
3) It will provide a much better separation between your application and the mainframe environment from a maintenance and support point of view.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mastanr |
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10
|
Thanks for your note. I guess I can use JMS client or MQ clinet to talk to MQ Server. Which one will be the better option?
| jefflowrey wrote: |
You can only talk to the mainframe if the mainframe has installed something called the Client Connection Facility. This is an extra charge item, so the mainframe group may not have purchased it.
You may be a lot better off working with a local MQServer, and establishing server to server connectivity, for a number of reasons.
1) It's probably less expensive long term.
2) It's a lot easier to work out the mainframe security for the server connection than it will be for all of the clients using your java application.
3) It will provide a much better separation between your application and the mainframe environment from a maintenance and support point of view. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| mastanr wrote: |
| Thanks for your note. I guess I can use JMS client or MQ clinet to talk to MQ Server. Which one will be the better option? |
From Java, they are the same thing.
You have to have the WebSphere MQ java classes on your classpath. Both the JMS bindings and the WebSphere MQ API for Java are included in the Java API installation. You do not need a regular MQ Client installation on a machine to use either of the Java client APIs.
The decision to use JMS or the WebSphere MQ API for Java should be based on how strictly your java application is sticking to the J2EE standards.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
We used to have a load of distributed MQ queue managers for desktop MQ clients to connect to. We replaced them with direct MQ client connection to mainframe. Much more reliable and far less administration.
I prefer an approach of having a few, highly available queue managers, eg mainframe, HA/CMP AIX or MSCS Windows. All application servers use MQ client connections.
The mainframe CCF cost may be an issue, depends how you pay for software - quite often it is a monthly charge or included in outsourcing arrangements.
I think it's worth the cost, especially as you can then use MQ client based tools like WMQTool or MQ Visual Edit to directly look at mainframe queues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| zpat wrote: |
| I prefer an approach of having a few, highly available queue managers, eg mainframe, HA/CMP AIX or MSCS Windows. All application servers use MQ client connections. |
This is somewhat difficult to do in a WAS environment where you need XA.
| zpat wrote: |
| I think it's worth the cost, especially as you can then use MQ client based tools like WMQTool or MQ Visual Edit to directly look at mainframe queues. |
The last shop I worked at that had a mainframe I had any dealings with, the mainframe folks would have popped their corks at the thought.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Why, MQ is about all about platform independence. The mainframe is just another queue manager platform.
You can use the extended transactional client, but fortunately we have little need for XA, although we have tried it (painfully) on MQSI/WBIMB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| zpat wrote: |
| Why, MQ is about all about platform independence. The mainframe is just another queue manager platform. |
That last one is exactly why... it's a MAINFRAME, it's not "just another" anything... 
Actually, it was because of security/auditing reasons.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
