| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Flow shared variables - differences between 6.1 FP3 and FP4 |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| mattynorm |
 Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:22 am Post subject: Flow shared variables - differences between 6.1 FP3 and FP4 |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 52
|
Have a flow that declares 2 shared booleans, and sets each one individually dependent on the input message. It then checks to make sure both are TRUE before continuing processing.
This works fine under FP03, but when testing it against a Broker at FP04, when the second message comes into the flow, the shared boolean that should have been TRUE'd by the first message is NULL again (and if I run the first message in again, the one set by the second message has NULLed again).
Anyone else experienced this (both brokers are 6.1 running on Solaris), and know if moving to a later fixpack (probably FP07) will sort it out?
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Gaya3 |
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 2493
Location: Boston, US
|
i wonder what kind of logic is this, and i would like to know, what you are trying to achieve from this.
i would rather think of using RFH Headers to get rid off from these shared or global variable(s)
_________________
Regards
Gayathri
-----------------------------------------------
Do Something Before you Die |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
We experienced some severe issues with previously working message flows in WMB 6.1.04 and rapidly moved to WMB 6.1.05.
I recommend you do the same, or look at WMB 6.1.07 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gaya3 |
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 2493
Location: Boston, US
|
| zpat wrote: |
We experienced some severe issues with previously working message flows in WMB 6.1.04 and rapidly moved to WMB 6.1.05.
I recommend you do the same, or look at WMB 6.1.07 |
then it's a PMR on top of PMR
_________________
Regards
Gayathri
-----------------------------------------------
Do Something Before you Die |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mattynorm |
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 52
|
| Quote: |
| i wonder what kind of logic is this, and i would like to know, what you are trying to achieve from this |
We have 2 data completion events (once a day), which are published to this flow (they don't have any rfh headers on the messages). These events are also written to a database table. Originally the flow took the event, then went to the database to see if the other event had occured on that day, and if so continued processing. The problem with this was that the event was written to the db marginally before the event was published to the flow, so if the 2 events happpened at almost exactly the same time, when the first event went through the flow, the db entry for the second event was already there, so the processing continued, then when the 2nd event went through the flow it kicked off the processing again.
The use of the 2 booleans was so that we could ensure the subsequent processing only ran once. It's a sticking plaster for another problem, but that problem isn't going to get fixed any time soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
| Always update shared variables inside a BEGIN ATOMIC clause. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
