| Author |
Message
|
| rgprasanna |
 Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:59 am Post subject: Can't we use a local queue to trigger the channel? |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 91
Location: Chennai - India
|
Hi,
i want the channel to be triggered when i place the message on the local queue..(not a transmit queue)..is that possible?
_________________
Prasanna |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
What good would that do?
The message would still be on the local queue after the channel started.
You can trigger a process that does anything you want, including start a channel.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mrlinux |
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 1261
Location: Detroit,MI USA
|
You certainly can trigger a process to start based on message on a local queue.
You have several choices for triggering
1) Trigger First
2) Trigger Priority
3) Trigger Depth
4) Combination of 2/3
What is the desired purposes for this ???
_________________
Jeff
IBM Certified Developer MQSeries
IBM Certified Specialist MQSeries
IBM Certified Solutions Expert MQSeries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
| mrlinux wrote: |
You certainly can trigger a process to start based on message on a local queue.
You have several choices for triggering
1) Trigger First
2) Trigger Priority
3) Trigger Depth
4) Combination of 2/3
What is the desired purposes for this ??? |
No...you have
1)First
2)Depth
3)Every
Of course trigger priority is in effect for all of the above.
But the question still remains....Why would you want to start a channel if it isn't the transmission queue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mrlinux |
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 1261
Location: Detroit,MI USA
|
You are right about the the trigger every(My mind must be going)
Well I can think of couple of things.
1) If you wanted to verify the channel will start using some form of
automation without sending a message to the remote qmgr.
Of course ping channel would work better.
2) If you wanted only to start the channel @ certain time intervals
and send the data in the xmitq then, say once and hour.
_________________
Jeff
IBM Certified Developer MQSeries
IBM Certified Specialist MQSeries
IBM Certified Solutions Expert MQSeries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mrlinux wrote: |
2) If you wanted only to start the channel @ certain time intervals
and send the data in the xmitq then, say once and hour. |
Scheduled PCF / START CHANNEL command? Bit more standard?
And how would you be sure all the messages had been sent before doing the STOP? You'd need something else monitoring the depth of the xmitq.
But of course just when you think you've seen the most bizarre requirement ever...... 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mrlinux |
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 1261
Location: Detroit,MI USA
|
Starting the channel with the start command would not test the trigger monitor process (Which I have seen die)
Actually you would not stop the channel, you would use the disconnect interval to bring the channel down.
NOTE: I am just giving some ideas of things you could do, not saying you would ever want too!!!!
_________________
Jeff
IBM Certified Developer MQSeries
IBM Certified Specialist MQSeries
IBM Certified Solutions Expert MQSeries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
| A thought just popped into my head....Maybe the channel in question is, for some strange reason, a manually stopped RCVR? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guest
|
| Doesn't this post seem vaguely familiar? Didn't we just have a discussion about triggering a server-requester channel? Is this the same post? With poster in disguise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Doesn't this post seem vaguely familiar? Didn't we just have a discussion about triggering a server-requester channel? Is this the same post? With poster in disguise? |
Anything's possible. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rgprasanna |
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:54 am Post subject: did any try to do that? |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 91
Location: Chennai - India
|
did any one try to do that...just i want to know the possibility of starting the channel using local queue triggering...from my understanding
you can do the two things
triggering the transmission queue to start the channels
triggering the local queue to start an application
correct me if i am wrong?
_________________
Prasanna |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
The question remains why would you want a local queue to trigger a channel? Logically the messsage is going the wrong way i.e. being delivered to the local queue manager.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:05 am Post subject: Re: did any try to do that? |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| rgprasanna wrote: |
| triggering the local queue to start an application |
"runmqsc" is "an application". So you can trigger "an application" to "start the channel".
But why would you do this? Why do you want to do this? Why are you asking this question?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rgprasanna |
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 91
Location: Chennai - India
|
i got a client who want the channel to be started on their own convenience...they've access to an local queue, so whenever the first message arrives on a local queue a sender channel needs to be started?
i think it's not possible...from my understanding starting an channel is only possible when you set triggering condition on transmission queue and not an local queue
just i want to confirm that.
_________________
Prasanna |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| rgprasanna wrote: |
| i got a client who want the channel to be started on their own convenience...they've access to an local queue, so whenever the first message arrives on a local queue a sender channel needs to be started? |
a) If they've access to a local queue, why do they need a channel started?
b) A triggered channel does start at their convienience i.e. when they put a message
c) If you are the poster of the previous thread, it was discussed there. If you're not you'll find the discussion useful as the requirement appears to match yours!
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
