| Author |
Message
|
| san3297 |
 Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:31 am Post subject: Do we Require Mq client on each system to access message |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 7
|
Hi ,
I currently created a applicaiton by adding the amqmdnet, amqmdxcs dlls in .net.Iam able to read message and format in form to show it.It was working fine on my system.But when i tested on my other developer system it was not working saying Unable to load DLL 'amqxcs2.dll'.When i forcefully tried to add in his local system it was not allowing me, the reason is it comes with product installation.Mq client is not isntalled on the other system.
SO my question is there a way without installing mq client on each end user system we be able to access message in queue.Iam currenlty doing all this in .net environment and it is a windows application.My company is not expecting to install mq client on each end user system once it goes live.So please let me know Is this possible if so how.Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Bill.Matthews |
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 232
Location: IBM (Retired)
|
This question has been asked before and the official response from IBM Service has been - you must install the MQ Client or you are in an unsupported environment. Simply coping the files is not sufficient.
_________________
Bill Matthews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Obviously you are not using the managed .NET client. Only the managed .NET client requires only .NET files and not the full client. Read more on this in the .NET manual...
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| san3297 |
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 7
|
I dint knew that client was necessary to get access to mq.I thought dlls will do the job.
Wht u mean is if i use .net managed client i can achieve this.I dint exactly get you.In one of the post in this forum a user achived it in C.This does not apply only in .net.Thanks for ur replies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| san3297 wrote: |
| In one of the post in this forum a user achived it in C. |
Which post?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| san3297 |
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bower5932 |
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Aug 2001
Posts: 3023
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
|
| Getting something to work and getting something supported are two different things. Go back and look at the first response to your initial append. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| san3297 wrote: |
http://www.mqseries.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34442
I think that the case in the above post is similar to me.Correct me if iam wrong.Thank you. |
In the post you quote, I made the point that bower5932 has repeated here - getting something to work and getting it supported are 2 different things.
Re-reading the original post, I think he got it "working" by statically linking all the client libraries with his application. This is the same, from a technological standpoint, as doing a client installation with the disadvantage you can't update the client without re-releasing the application.
I (as always) struggle to understand why installing the client is considered such a problem. It's free, small and no particular trouble to install. Why spend ages banging away to produce a less suitable and unsupported solution when the right solution is so easily and quickly available?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| I (as always) struggle to understand why installing the client is considered such a problem. It's free, small and no particular trouble to install. Why spend ages banging away to produce a less suitable and unsupported solution when the right solution is so easily and quickly available? |
Because software provisioning systems cost money?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| Vitor wrote: |
| I (as always) struggle to understand why installing the client is considered such a problem. It's free, small and no particular trouble to install. Why spend ages banging away to produce a less suitable and unsupported solution when the right solution is so easily and quickly available? |
Because software provisioning systems cost money? |
Fair point, but if the arguement runs that "we can't install clients on all the required machines because there are too many", then this implies to my possibly bizarre British logic that they have too many machines to perform manual installations of any software and either:
a) have an existing procedure to control, modify and update the machines in question (hordes of flying monkeys with CDs perhaps)
b) could get the cost of a software provisioning system spilt between MQ, the machine admins and the application people, all of whom could use it. Plus it would be offset by the savings in monkey food, CD burners and runway lights.
Especially MQ client. You can slient install MQ client with a bit of script.
Maybe it's just me. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
But all those monkeys make things look BUSY, like WORK is getting done.
Also, who has time to put in such a system, when they're so busy with air traffic control?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Can't you do an unattended installation of MQ client? Then it's just one command file to run.
Or use an automated software delivery process, most large sites already have this set up.
| Quote: |
| Unattended (silent) installation WebSphere MQ for Windows client is installed using the Microsoft Installer (MSI). You can invoke MSI directly, without using setup.exe. This means that you can install WebSphere MQ on a machine without interaction. This process is called unattended (or silent) installation, and is particularly useful for installing WebSphere MQ over a network on a remote machine, because you can install from a shared drive on a LAN server. To do this, you can invoke MSI with a parameter that calls a response file. A response file is an ASCII text file that contains the parameter values you want to set for the installation. |
RTFM (The MQ clients manual) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| zpat wrote: |
Can't you do an unattended installation of MQ client? Then it's just one command file to run.
Or use an automated software delivery process, most large sites already have this set up.
|
I can only assume most sites have found it easier to train flying monkeys than set this up. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| zpat wrote: |
Can't you do an unattended installation of MQ client? Then it's just one command file to run.
Or use an automated software delivery process, most large sites already have this set up.
|
I can only assume most sites have found it easier to train flying monkeys than set this up. |
Easier? I wouldn't know... Cheaper maybe?
(Instructions to monkey handler: Just capture a bunch of monkeys and strip a chute on them. Park them in the plane an give them the CD. Take off and throw monkey out of plane when flying over destination. If monkey survives let him install the software. If monkey dies and CD is undammaged have human install the software. If monkey dies and CD is dammaged... tough S**t. Better luck next time....) 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
| You can't use monkeys - they just sit around and write Shakespeare... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
