| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Msgflow as application not a good practice? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| pcelari |
 Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject: Msgflow as application not a good practice? |
 |
|
Chevalier
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 411
Location: New York
|
In the v2.1 era, a white paper over good practice of using MQSI listed a few rules in the use of msgflow. One of them is to limit the use of msgflow for transformation & routing, but avoid building msgflow as applications.
Time seems to have changed a lot. When I look at the current technology examples, a whole airline reservation system is built as a set of msgflows.
So is the old rules still valid?
I ask this question as I was confronted with the question if I should include application logic in my msgflow, or if I should use the database nodes capability to update database records in my msgflow instead of calling a seperate application in the mid of a msgflow to do the update for me.
It seems to me, the answer should be "why not?". As a integration platform, why shouldn't I build an application inside broker completely if it makes sense? But where is the border?
Can any geru out there please give some insight on this subject?
_________________
pcelari
-----------------------------------------
- a master of always being a newbie |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
These days, Message Broker is used to develop solutions, not applications.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| narki |
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 67
|
I strongly beleive that message broker should not be used for application.
Its a broker not an application server. All the artifacts of application server is not present in the broker. Broker should be used for message transformation, routing and enrichment. I had seen application started with message enrichment ended up in writing a application. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
It's definitely not an application server.
It's a solution engine.
As to whether it runs "business logic", that depends on how you define "business logic". It's hard to imagine any real routing or transformation that is not, in some way "business dependant" and thus "business logic".
And it's entirely ridiculous to do something like write a message flow that puts a message on a queue, that is serviced by a local Java program that performs a very dumb database insert. For almost all performance requirements, Broker can do database inserts perfectly reasonably.
All of that said, Broker is positioned as a product to build an Advanced ESB on. This notion includes distinctions between what Broker should do and what "applications" should do. This means that all of the capabilities that broker has are slanted towards a particular section of the enterprise.
So Broker is not, for example, very good at interacting with people out of the box. Things like Process Server are.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pcelari |
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 411
Location: New York
|
thanks for the insights.
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| These days, Message Broker is used to develop solutions, not applications. |
How do you define a "solution" apart from an application"?
It's my understanding that WMB is for stateless processes, while process server is for stateful processes that include long-running transactions.
Years back, people use MQWorkflow together with MQSI where MQWF manage the flow of works that may include interaction with users, and MQSI does the works. It seems to be still the case between WPS and WMB.
It's virtually impossible to avoid busines logic in a msgflow. Also an artificial separation will result in highly fragmented msgflow and "application" components.
What's your comment on all those complete solutions in the technology examples? they seem to contain all business logics.
_________________
pcelari
-----------------------------------------
- a master of always being a newbie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| pcelari wrote: |
| How do you define a "solution" apart from an application"? |
I know it when I see it? 
| pcelari wrote: |
| It's my understanding that WMB is for stateless processes, while process server is for stateful processes that include long-running transactions. |
Yes, that's a useful distinction. But it's possible to do statefull processing in broker. Long-running transactions is a bit harder.
| pcelari wrote: |
| What's your comment on all those complete solutions in the technology examples? they seem to contain all business logics. |
I don't have any comments on them.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
