| Author |
Message
|
| shogan2003 |
 Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:17 am Post subject: Can't we keep on using WMQI 2.1 ? |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 133
Location: London
|
I have 2 questions concerning WBI MB5 :
1. Point-to-point
-------------------
I've browsed through the redbook on migrating from WMQI 2.1 to WBI MB5. I spent the last 10 months on a WMQI 2.1 project and the project I'm commencing at another company would in my view be accomplished smoothly using WQSI 2.1, at least as far as the point-to-point aspects are concerned.
2. Pub-sub
-------------
I've only ever briefly toyed with pub-sub support pacs for MQSeries and MQSI..there is a requirement for pub-sub here so I wondered whether I would be better off with the old queue-based pub-sub rather than MQ Real-Time Transport.
What are your views ? Grandmasters or "newbies", I value all your comments and views. Don't go with the flow (excuse pun) tell me what you *honestly* feel about this new version. I'm batting for MQSI (as I still like to call it) on this project.
Regards to all at this great bulletin board site
SMH |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
I haven't worked with the Real Time Transport, but v5 does still support queue based pub/sub as far as I know.
I would not personally start a new installation with version 2.1. The upgrade path to version five is too complicated, and 2.1 will be going out of support.
The new features of v5 are nice, particularly some of the new tooling, although it is still a case where you are trading old annoyances for new annoyances (at least in my opinion).
It is also reasonably easy to develop for v5 as if you were developing in v2.1, without having to worry about things like broker schemas and packages and namespaces.
But this is all just my own opinion based on my recent experiences.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| shogan2003 |
| Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 133
Location: London
|
| Many thanks for the quick reply, Herr GM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JT |
| Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 1564
Location: Hartford, CT.
|
Sean,
The Pub/Sub feature you've come to know in v2.1 is still very much alive and well in v5.
My partner and I were faced with the very same dilemma last year. We had worked with MQSI/WMQI v2.x
for a number of years and when we started new employment last year we had to decide which version to
implement, v2.1 vs. v5.0. After much consternation we made the decision to move forward with v5.0 and
haven't looked back since. There is a slight learning curve between the two releases, but it can be greatly
reduced depending upon your experience with the eclipse ide.
A few of the features we like:- The debugger is greatly improved
- The ability to extend the WSAD workbench (IE) with WBIMB
- Plug-in with a source control system (PVCS)
- HTTP Nodes
- Ability to supply distinct database ids and passwords for user database connections
- Concept of .bar files
- Greater flexibility when working with messages
A few of the features we don't:- We have been unable to successfully migrate the supportpaks that we've become accustomed to in v2.1
- The usual anomalies that show up with a new version (i.e.; phantom flows, out of sync UUIDs)
- Vague or incomplete documentation
Hope this helps |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| shogan2003 |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 133
Location: London
|
Thanks "apprentice"..I best you're really a "guru" in the work you're undertaking.
Hmm..so which support paks did you encounter problems with ?
Using WMQI 2.1 I used the import XSD tool, also the command-line tool for import/export of message flows a lot for backup when bound up in a script. Are they affected ?
Cheers
Sean |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
| Quote: |
| Using WMQI 2.1 I used the import XSD tool |
Well, that certainly won't cause you a problem in v5. The v5 message model
is based on XML Schema, and importing of schemas is built into v5. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeteHanbury |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:40 am Post subject: MQSI TO WBI 5 |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 23
Location: US AND EUROPE
|
If i were you i would stick to your guns and continuie to use MQSI 2.1 because IBM dont know where they are at with WBI OR WBI BROKER ETC ..
Logically from a technical perspective, i have some serious concerns with the move to WBI 5 and the so called exclipse platform.
I was part of the original release team at Hursley when MQSI came out in July 2000. For the first year the product was quite unstable and was rejected by many City institutions as being 'not production ready' or its worse description as being like the death star in the empire strikes back with half the scafolding hanging out the side. This was an acurate comment at the time.
I began to see great improvements in the product once both the configuration manager and the broker, were made REPOSITORY queue managers. Having worked with mqsi in a number of production environments over the past 3 years, i can honestly inform you that it is this feature that has led to stability and recovery within the product.
My concern now is that in the latest release, the configuration manager is no longer going to be a repository queue manager. Knowing how MQSI performed in he bad old days. i am loath to return to that scenario. I just can not understand why IBM would remove a feature that has (i have seen) proved so consistantly important over the last few years.
MQSI 2.1 is now a very stable and wonderful product. Just because ibm managers are obssessed with labeling everythink 'websphere' does not mean that we have to follow ther lead ..
In my opinion you have made a sound and very valid judgement ... i too, for the present, am letting my clients know that they should avoid the latest version.
_________________
PeteHanbury
Independent IBM MQSeries/MQSI Architecture Certified Contractor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeteHanbury |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:44 am Post subject: update mqsi |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 23
Location: US AND EUROPE
|
Shogan,
pertaining to my other reply,
i took this from another message that was posted:
The usual anomalies that show up with a new version (i.e.; phantom flows, out of sync UUIDs)
I think this says it all
_________________
PeteHanbury
Independent IBM MQSeries/MQSI Architecture Certified Contractor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:05 am Post subject: Re: MQSI TO WBI 5 |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| PeteHanbury wrote: |
| I began to see great improvements in the product once both the configuration manager and the broker, were made REPOSITORY queue managers. Having worked with mqsi in a number of production environments over the past 3 years, i can honestly inform you that it is this feature that has led to stability and recovery within the product. |
Could you please explain what you mean by "Repository queue manager"? As far as I know, that term only has meaning when discussing MQSeries Clustering.
| PeteHanbury wrote: |
| In my opinion you have made a sound and very valid judgement ... i too, for the present, am letting my clients know that they should avoid the latest version. |
I disagree with this for new installations - unless you are going to be doing no development whatsoever. If you are merely installaling turnkey WMQI solutions, that will go through no period of initial testing at the new client, then it is reasonable to not start with the newest product.
Version 5 is stable enough at CSD02 for getting started with the Integrator product in a real working environment. I would expect that in a normal development process, where flows and message sets go through a proper dev-test-prod cycle, that any v5 specific issues will likely come up and can be addressed with IBM.
I would not personally want to be in a situation of recommending version 2.1 to a client, and having IBM announce that it has then gone out of support before they can purchase or implement it.
And IBM may not even be selling version 2.1 for new installations yet.
And for existing installations with 2.1, there are a number of fairly compelling reasons to migrate to version 5. In addition, given the complexity of the migration process, the earlier you get started the more likely you are going to be able to convert completely before 2.1 goes out of support!
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeteHanbury |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:29 am Post subject: MQSI - 2.1 update |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 23
Location: US AND EUROPE
|
I keep seeing this obssesion with ' upgrading before it goes out of support'
If you are happy with v2.1 then i dont see any reason for you to feel pressurised to move to wbi.
And what support is there for MQSI at IBM. You telephone and are put through to a team of 3 Indian guys at Raliegh who just want to get you of the telephone as soon as possible. Believe me i have met these guys and know that they were brought over from india. Then placed on the MQSI course for 5 days. After which they were placed next to a telephone and told you are the mqsi second line support. They know absolutely nothing ... This is the level of contempt *** has for its customers. So if you were an existing mqsi v2.1 user and are happy, then i see know reason why you should allow IBM to bully you. After all support for MQSeries 2.1 went away a longtime ago, but i know companies at Raliegh who still pay for support despite it officially "going out of support"
I do however concur with your comments about a new client. If they are approaching MQSI as a new project then it makes sense to start afresh. I have emailed Jill Lennon with my concerns over the changes to the configuration manager .. But she is on vacation, and i wait for her response.
I am currently attached to a large bank in Luxembourg and after extensive trials they have decided not to upgrade to the latest version and are going to stick with 2.1 despite IBM's threats. Indeed they are actualy now looking at the crossworlds product suite (i am aware crossworlds is no longer the correct name after IBM brought them out)
Yes i can confirm that 'Repositories' are used with MQSI. I stumbled across it by accident when we were deleting and then recreating a configuration manager. You get a message saying somthing like 'repository queue manager 'qmgr name' created' This was a surprise to me.
Thanks for your comments
Anybody wwant to bet 10 us dollars that CICS becomes Websphere CICS
.... Only joking .. i hope
_________________
PeteHanbury
Independent IBM MQSeries/MQSI Architecture Certified Contractor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeteHanbury |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:35 am Post subject: CLUSTERING IN MQSI |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 23
Location: US AND EUROPE
|
Sorry Shogan ,
I did not answer your question correctly.
I can confirm that Repository qmgrs are the same as one would assume in MQSeries clustering..
Cheers
Peet
_________________
PeteHanbury
Independent IBM MQSeries/MQSI Architecture Certified Contractor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:44 am Post subject: Re: MQSI - 2.1 update |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| PeteHanbury wrote: |
| I keep seeing this obssesion with ' upgrading before it goes out of support' |
Some people may see it as an obsession, some people may see it as common sense... 
| PeteHanbury wrote: |
| If you are happy with v2.1 then i dont see any reason for you to feel pressurised to move to wbi. |
Then I think you haven't really examined the features of version 5 fully then.
As I said, there are a number of fairly compelling features. And, oddly enough, the Eclipse tooling is one of them! The Control Center in 2.1 is horrible as a development tool. The Eclipse based tooling is better in a lot of ways - although it still does have a number of annoyances.
But this is just my opinion... which may not even be worth $0.02
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JT |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 1564
Location: Hartford, CT.
|
| Sean wrote: |
| ..so which support paks did you encounter problems with ? |
Although it appears that it's possible (according to previous postings on the topic) to migrate these plug-ins to v5 using the mqsimigratemsgflows command, we have been unsuccessful. We tried to migrate the following plug-ins:- IA06 Get All Environment Variables plug-in (alas, support has since been withdrawn)
- IA09 MQGet plug-in (here too, support has since been withdrawn)
- IA91 Broker Domain Cache Plug-in
| Pete wrote: |
i took this from another message that was posted:
The usual anomalies that show up with a new version (i.e.; phantom flows, out of sync UUIDs)
I think this says it all |
Just to clarify this statement, the stability of the version was an issue when we first implemented in a development environment back in the 3rd qtr of 2003, since then the version has become increasingly stable with the arrival of CSD02 & CSD03. We currently have a number of production applications on v5 in a Solaris environment, processing without incident. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| shogan2003 |
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 133
Location: London
|
Would anyone else like to contribute..blimey, I seem to have sparked a fierce debate here. Seems MQSI will have to be added to the list of topics to be avoided at polite gatherings, along with politics and religion. Hmm, maybe it IS a religion !
Many thanks for the responses. Certainly food for thought. SMH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| krchoy |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 13 May 2002
Posts: 12
|
From the POV of a developer, there's heaps of improvements that makes life easier. If your developers don't want/need to stretch themselves, they may be happy with 2.1 but I could never go back to editing ESQL with the old tool. The more realistic editor functionality (edit history, source highlight, code templates,...) will also not appeal to some.
A single person development might also not see a lot of value in the teaming provisions of Eclipse. But if you start doing some intensive work in ESQL you will find that application development discipline becomes an issue and it's just really hard to do in 2.1.
For the Administrator/Operation persons - it's different. Is it better? Debatable. I'd say probably but I'm Operations isn't my day job. The model is a little bit more like JAR and WAR files for Java and Web Server apps so it might fit better with other Operations tools and methods. Maybe. If you have no methods then it doesn't matter I suppose. 
There's also a heap of extra function in XML Schema and Namespaces, and with web service interfaces.
Not bug free yet but IMHO it has improved. And no, I don't sell the stuff. I just use it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
