| Author |
Message
|
| emiranda |
 Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:07 am Post subject: Asking (and receiving!) Reports |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 196
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Hi guys,
A customer raised a question:
If a partner at QMB keeps its xmitq get(disabled), after QMA sending a message (MQRO_COA, MQRO_COD and MQRO_EXCEPTION), QMB will get the message and the reports will no be delivered to QMA.
I said him this is very true, and he got kinda disapointed with MQ!
Any idea to amend this?
_________________
Warm Regards,
EM |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| sebastianhirt |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 620
Location: Germany
|
How about just making sure get is enabled on the xmitq 
I think this is rather a feature then a bug... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
If get is disabled on the XMITQ, then no messages will go to QMA (the MCA will be unable to retrieve them!).
So why would you do that? Why not just stop the channel?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| emiranda |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 196
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
I know that, but the customer is supposing its partner (who actually is another company) could have bad intentions... 
Any idea on solutions?
_________________
Warm Regards,
EM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| emiranda wrote: |
I know that, but the customer is supposing its partner (who actually is another company) could have bad intentions...
Any idea on solutions? |
Solutions to what? Customer partners with bad intentions? Change partners!
Non-repudiation of message delivery? If the partner has bad intentions, they aren't going to take your word for it anyway! But a channel exit that logs the date/time and msgId of all messages that pass through is a good start.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sebastianhirt |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 620
Location: Germany
|
I guess the only solution is to make sure your partners keep there cmitqs put enabled (correct me somebody if I am wrong).
As Jeff already says. The MCA wouldn't be able to retrieve the message from the queue. Therefore, no transmission is possible.
Also I would recommend you not to make business with evil companies. I have seen resident evil last night... That showed me what the result can be  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| emiranda |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 196
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Jeff, if the partner stops the channel, it would be noticeable.
I was wondering if there's a way to be sure your message was delivered even you don't receive your COA.
Should be something there, don't you think? 
_________________
Warm Regards,
EM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| emiranda wrote: |
I was wondering if there's a way to be sure your message was delivered even you don't receive your COA.
Should be something there, don't you think? |
As far as I'm concerned, if it's not on my SDLQ or XMITQ, then it's delivered.
If the partner doesn't want to allow you to get reports back, then you have to either trust MQ or add an exit on the channel that logs information. There isn't anything else in the system.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| emiranda |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 196
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
That's it. The Send/Receive exits could help. The send and receive exit programs are called for initialization at MCA initiation and for termination at MCA termination.
The send exit program is invoked immediately before a message transmission, and the receive exit program is invoked immediately after a transmission. When the sender side (send exit) receive an "ack" from the receive exit, it means the message was handled by the MCA in the receiver side, and I can "write a log" of this...
Does it seem ok?
_________________
Warm Regards,
EM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Send/receive exits have to be paired. I doubt you would get your partner with bad intentions to let you install an exit on their qm.
I think a message exit.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| emiranda |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 196
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Yeah... but even the bad intentions have their limits... 
The whole system is regulated by a central organisation. There are some rules regarding installation, configuration and availability shoul be followed, even the bad intensioned partner wants to keep its xmitq disable!
(I think) the message exit ends before the message is transmited.
Cheers!
_________________
Warm Regards,
EM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
You've reached the limits of my experience/knowledge. I've not done anything with exits.
So, time to hit the books! 
But if there are rules, then they shouldn't be able to get-disable the XMITQ. You should be able to require them to allow COA/COD transmission as part of the whole process.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
This seems like an awful lot of trouble and overhead to have between two business partners.
Given that the messages that are going to the partner are persistent datagrams (if they get disable the XMITQ then they would have to be datagrams otherwise you won't get a reply) then, as Jeff says, you can rest assured that if the messages aren't on your queue, they got them. You can't, however, know that they didn't lose them....but you can't be sure of that with your exits either.
If they get disable the xmitq then the channel will stop, this will result in a message in the log record at both ends and you will see that they did it.
If you are only using the channel back to you for report messages then the fact you don't get a report back should tell you something is wrong and you can say with certainty that it is at their end if your SDLQ and XmitQ are empty.
If you are using the report messages to monitor against a Service Level Agreement then it should be agreed upon and written into the SLA that the xmitq is never Get disabled.
Somewhere along the line a little trust has to be in place especially between business partners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| emiranda |
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 196
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Thanks for all the posts guys!
Cheers
_________________
Warm Regards,
EM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
