| Author |
Message
|
| roshan.171188 |
 Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:44 pm Post subject: Channel trigger in XMITQ |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 35
|
Hi all,
Can u please tell me what is the difference between triggering a channel by defining a process to initiate the channel and directly invoking the channel by mentioning its name in the TRIGDATA param of the xmitQ?
i can only see that they both r the same, but then y would neone want to create an xtra object to do the same work?
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
WebSphere comes with a special trigger monitor to start channels. It is called a channel initiator. It is different from the trigger monitor that starts applications.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| roshan.171188 |
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 35
|
Thanks bruce, i know that!
runmqchi can be triggered via TRIGDATA and a separate process object too, i am just looking for a difference btw the two.
defining a separate process must have an advantage over the former coz i've seen it being used in major infrastructures (i mean if they create an extra object to serve the same purpose, there should definitely be a reason?). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:02 am Post subject: Re: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| roshan.171188 wrote: |
| ...defining a separate process must have an advantage over the former coz i've seen it being used in major infrastructures (i mean if they create an extra object to serve the same purpose, there should definitely be a reason?). |
At versions previous to V5.3 (but my memory may be a little hazy here) the only way to trigger a channel was by using a process, and if you still see a process being used then generally it's because either old habits die hard (it's in the standards doc and the 'requirement' has never been reviewed), or that the queue manager has been migrated through versions.
_________________
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: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:11 am Post subject: Re: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| exerk wrote: |
| At versions previous to V5.3 (but my memory may be a little hazy here) the only way to trigger a channel was by using a process, and if you still see a process being used then generally it's because either old habits die hard (it's in the standards doc and the 'requirement' has never been reviewed), or that the queue manager has been migrated through versions. |
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Me, too.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jcv |
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:05 pm Post subject: Re: Channel trigger in XMITQ |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 411
Location: Zagreb
|
| roshan.171188 wrote: |
| i can only see that they both r the same, ... |
They both are not optimal. If you can, leave trigdata blank too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:40 pm Post subject: Re: Channel trigger in XMITQ |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| jcv wrote: |
| They both are not optimal. If you can, leave trigdata blank too. |
For the wider audience, would you please justify why? Thank you.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:08 pm Post subject: Re: Channel trigger in XMITQ |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| exerk wrote: |
| jcv wrote: |
| They both are not optimal. If you can, leave trigdata blank too. |
For the wider audience, would you please justify why? Thank you. |
The bigger question is, how?
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:13 am Post subject: Re: Channel trigger in XMITQ |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| exerk wrote: |
| jcv wrote: |
| They both are not optimal. If you can, leave trigdata blank too. |
For the wider audience, would you please justify why? Thank you. |
The bigger question is, how? |
From the Info Centre "...If you do not specify a channel name, the channel initiator searches the channel definition files until it finds a channel that is associated with the named transmission queue..."
_________________
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 |
|
|
| jcv |
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 411
Location: Zagreb
|
| It is more convenient to me, for obvious reasons. There is no significant difference for me if channel initiator does that search prior to channel start, so I let it do that search. Do you gain much if you don't use that possibility? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| jcv wrote: |
| It is more convenient to me, for obvious reasons. |
Sorry, obvious to you maybe, but not obvious to me...
| jcv wrote: |
| There is no significant difference for me if channel initiator does that search prior to channel start, so I let it do that search. |
...valid for your setup but not necessarily so for others...
| jcv wrote: |
| Do you gain much if you don't use that possibility? |
...it could be argued that the channel table look-up will be slower than the direct use of the TRIGDATA attribute, and my comment regarding multiple channels, same XMITQ.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
If I'm dealing with a cranky XMITQ its easier to see which channel its associated with by looking at the XMITQ definition versus listing all the SNDR and SVR channels and starting to look at their definitions one...by one...by one...by one..until I find that match.
Sure it'll work if you don't specify it. But I think its always better to explicitly set something versus relying on defaults and relying on one's recollection of what those defaults are: Syncpoints, port #s, persistence, priority, expiry, channel to xmitq relationships, etc.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Omitting the channel name in the trigdata field doesn't seem to offer any advantages for administrators.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jcv |
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 411
Location: Zagreb
|
There's no argue about it, it will be slower, insignificantly to me, significantly to you, others will decide for themselves. The question was "Do you gain much if..." (in ms), not "What do you gain if...", because that is obvious.
Multiple channels+same xmitq=not of much relevance to me, at least until now. Can you describe the way you make use of it, please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
