| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Message Set design - Recommendation |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| IntegratorWMB |
 Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:00 am Post subject: Message Set design - Recommendation |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 27
|
Hi There,
I have a msg flow which transforms an incoming xml to tdf and another flow which just parses the incoming tdf response and update some status.
I designed the message set with a singe message definition file with 3 Messages
a) incoming xml
b) outgoing tdf
c) incoming tdf
There is no exact mapping for all attributes in the incoming and outgoing messages., meaning let say in my xml I have 20 elements. Some of these elements do not have a mapping with the outgoing tdf message. Adding to this the tdf message has some "hardcoded" strings which are not part of the incoming xml.
I read the documents and it was mentioned "you should limit your message sets to a few related message definition files" as a recommendation. During the review, some of my peers advocated using message definition file for each message., resulting in 3 message definition files. Even though this will have a minimal impact on the current project, I was wondering what will be the best practice to look for?
capturing all incoming and outgoing messages in one message defintion
(or)
Individual message definition file for each message if the mapping/transformation is not straightforward between incoming and outgoing.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
it's "clearer" to use three mxsds.
It's not gonna matter for performance, though.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
Best practices are:
- A message set should not have too many physical formats.
One is ideal. Two is acceptable if the input and output logical structures are identical. Too many physical formats tends to produce a lot of warnings in the Problems list.
- A message definition file should contain a set of related message definitions. e.g. all messages which are in the same namespace. Or all purchase order messages.
- Message definitions should be kept to a reasonable size.
In your case, I would
- define separate message definitions for incoming and outgoing messages. It sounds as if they are different structures.
- Put the 3 message definitions in the same message definition file...
- ...but consider whether you should have 3 physical formats in a single message set.
btw, a message definition is not the same as a 'message definition file'.
One message definition file can contain several message definitions. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
