| Author |
Message
|
| renzo88 |
 Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: Default Reply to Queue |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 5
|
Hi all,
We have an application that connect to MQ between it's own API and it's not possible to specify a Reply to Queue but our development team want to have reply can in specify in a local queue a reply to queue by default even if the replyQueue parameter is not set in the Message descriptor.
Thanks For your help
Laurent |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:33 am Post subject: Re: Default Reply to Queue |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| renzo88 wrote: |
| it's not possible to specify a Reply to Queue but our development team want to have reply |
Well there's an interesting mix of restrictions and requirements!
| renzo88 wrote: |
| can in specify in a local queue a reply to queue by default even if the replyQueue parameter is not set in the Message descriptor. |
No. How would the remote application / queue manager / WMQ technology know anyway? It doesn't have the details of what queue name the message was sent from, even assuming it could in some way query the remote queue manager!
Your first course of action is to push back on the development team - if they want a reply they should a) set the MQMD to show a REQUEST and b) set a ReplyTo queue!
If that fails, you'll need some kind of bridging application (WMB flow? Or something) that fills in the ReplyTo queue on their application's behalf.
Other, less optimal, solutions are probably possible.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
We had a pretty similar requirement because of a heap of garbage thrid party product. The product totally ignored any reply to queue and used it's own output queue (notice the singular use of the word QUEUE).
Fortunately the message payload was in XML so we simply added our own XML tags (which the 3rd party product totally ignores) for REPLYQ and REPLYTOQMGR. Of course this is still work for the application programmers but that is why we pay them right?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| kevinf2349 wrote: |
| ...a heap of garbage thrid party product.... |
I admire your restraint 
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kevinf2349 wrote: |
| ... of a heap of garbage thrid party product. |
I think I've used that as well!
It's of course a question of are the application developers happiest to a) read custom tags b) use the MQMD fields provided c) be hit upside the head with a trout until they stop being stupid or d) some combination of the above.
Violence doesn't solve anything. Except internal frustrations and anger.  
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
