| Author |
Message
|
| 02448 |
 Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:31 am Post subject: WebSphere MQ Client at ZO/S |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1
|
IBM does not provide a WebSphere MQ client at Z/OS mainframe.
However, it is very expensive to install and maintain a WebSphere MQ Server at ZO/S mainframe.
Is there any other software that we may use in order to read a remote queue sitting on a Windows server ? Can we do that with an API?
Thank you very much in advance
Elias Liatsos |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
You can, probably, run the pure Java MQ API under USS to connect to a distributed MQ Server.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: WebSphere MQ Client at ZO/S |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| 02448 wrote: |
IBM does not provide a WebSphere MQ client at Z/OS mainframe.
However, it is very expensive to install and maintain a WebSphere MQ Server at ZO/S mainframe.
Is there any other software that we may use in order to read a remote queue sitting on a Windows server ? Can we do that with an API?
Thank you very much in advance
Elias Liatsos |
You might as well look into the CAF (Client Attachement Facility for MQ on Z/OS) if you haven't already done so...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ashoon |
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:02 pm Post subject: pay as you go... |
|
|
Master
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 235
|
This may be of interest as well...
Select Application License Charges (SALC) is available solely for MQSeries and only on machines with either Workload License Charges or Entry Workload License Charges. SALC is an excellent price/performance option on very-low utilization installations of MQSeries. SALC is available for either Sub-Capacity or Full Capacity WLC/EWLC machines. For an MQSeries installation with the SALC pricing metric, software charges are based upon the utilization of MQSeries.
http://www-306.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/3/897/ENUS205-183/ENUS205-183.PDF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: WebSphere MQ Client at ZO/S |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| You might as well look into the CAF (Client Attachement Facility for MQ on Z/OS) if you haven't already done so... |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that only allows distributed clients to attach to the mainframe, not allow the mainframe to create a client connection to distributed MQ Servers...
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: WebSphere MQ Client at ZO/S |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but that only allows distributed clients to attach to the mainframe, not allow the mainframe to create a client connection to distributed MQ Servers... |
You ain't wrong, you right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: WebSphere MQ Client at ZO/S |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| hopsala wrote: |
| You ain't wrong, you right. |
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sanjoo |
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 65
|
Not sure... but can't you use CICS MQ adapters for this.
_________________
Sanjoo
Keep smiling
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
| Quote: |
| Not sure... but can't you use CICS MQ adapters for this. |
How would that work? He want's to read queues local to a windows qmgr from zOS, not the other way around.
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| javagate |
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 159
|
Are you trying to do this in real time? Is this some sort of a request/reply application? Or is this just a one way app (i.e.. just do a put)? Consider writing the messages on z/OS to an HFS file.... On the windows server map a drive the the mf driectories (this is very doable but I no longer have the instructions on how to do this but it can be done). Then you need some sort of relay app on the server.... But seams you are trying to get around having a qmgr when the app requires it. Oh and forget about the CICS/Batch adaptor that is only to connect CICS or a batch job to a qmgr running on the mf. To use the JMS feature on the MF I believe you will still need the MQSeries runtime libraries (loadlibs). To get them you must purchase it. Have fun.
_________________
WebSphere Application Server 7.0 z/OS &
MQ 6.0. I work with WebSphere in the real world not in some IBM lab. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Playing with USS and getting the java client to work is significantly better than messing around with files. 
The CICS transaction gateway might be cheaper to put in than MQ, and could provide a backwardly driven (distributed pushes data to mainframe, instead of mainframe pulls data from distributed) process, using triggering or something.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| javagate |
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 159
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
Playing with USS and getting the java client to work is significantly better than messing around with files.
The CICS transaction gateway might be cheaper to put in than MQ, and could provide a backwardly driven (distributed pushes data to mainframe, instead of mainframe pulls data from distributed) process, using triggering or something. |
Have you ever used or are you currently using the CTG, the old name by the way was JavaGateway, long for Javagate
Why involve CICS in the mix if you dont have to?
_________________
WebSphere Application Server 7.0 z/OS &
MQ 6.0. I work with WebSphere in the real world not in some IBM lab. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| javagate wrote: |
| Have you ever used or are you currently using the CTG, the old name by the way was JavaGateway, long for Javagate |
No... but I spent three years working to convert an extensive spaghetti mess of file based transfers using FTP, email, NJE/RJE and a whole mess of other legacy technologies into a cleaner simpler MQ based system.
| javagate wrote: |
| Why involve CICS in the mix if you dont have to? |
Why write data to files if you don't have to?
CICS is at least transactional... files are not.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| javagate |
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 159
|
I am not trying to get into a ------- contest. You have made a excellent point 'simpler MQ based system' is better no doubt about that. Although I have done CICS for many years (I claim to know nothing so I dont have to do it again). I rather not have to maintain CICS for something like this as now you need CICS programmers. We have what we call WEB lpars and cannot run CICS on them, only MQSeries, WebSphere and DB2. I guess our mix is a bit complex. Something like a HTTP server for the WWW, WebSphere to run the JMS aps that write to MQ and send a msg accross a network to a non WEB/legacy lpar to another MQ that starts a trans in CICS then it MRO's to another CICS and back through. Somewhat of a mess. Having gotten rid of CICS and the CTG on the WEB lpar was a little better... Just my 5 cents worth...
Do have a nice day.
_________________
WebSphere Application Server 7.0 z/OS &
MQ 6.0. I work with WebSphere in the real world not in some IBM lab. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| javagate wrote: |
| I am not trying to get into a ------- contest. |
Me either... 
It's just file based transfers make me twitchy by reflex... 
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
