| Author |
Message
|
| harshatej1 |
 Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:35 pm Post subject: transmission queue |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 Nov 2013
Posts: 61
|
while altering/changing transmission queue, is it necessary to alter remote queue definition also....
i.e., defining a new transmission queue and altering channel name are not sufficient |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Does the remote queue definition explicitly reference the transmission queue? If so, how will it locate the new name?
If it does not, will the new name facilitate the correct name resolution for the remote object?
Do you plan to keep posting simplistic questions rather than actually figuring things out for yourself?
I don't think you've asked a question yet which isn't answered by the documentation (I assume you've located some documentation for your v5.3 version written on some stone tablets someplace) or isn't answered by 5 minutes of experimentation.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rachakonda_v |
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:46 am Post subject: Messages are not coming into Transmission Queue |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 14 Jun 2012
Posts: 7
|
Hello,
I was placing the message in the remote queue and message was not reaching to the destination, but channels and transmission was perfectly setup.
Messages are not visible in the queues.
I believe there is an option which was done long ago, if we select that option the messages will be come into the transmission queues.
Waiting for your reply.
Thanks,
Vamsi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mr Butcher |
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 1716
|
congratulations, you invented invisible messages. 
you should re-read and reflect how distributed queueing works.
RQ -> XMITQ -> CHANNEL -> Destination (simple construct)
Now, what happens if you change the XMITQ name? Which objects are related? Have you considered other aspects of tghe naming resolution, e.g. clustering, default xmitq, .... ?!? (if not, re-read that chapter too)
_________________
Regards, Butcher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
I prefer to leave out the xmitq name in remote queue definitions - assuming there is a xmit queue which has the same name as the remote queue manager name.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| zpat wrote: |
| I prefer to leave out the xmitq name in remote queue definitions - assuming there is a xmit queue which has the same name as the remote queue manager name. |
Agreed.
I tend to only define a specific xmit queue when there are multiple channels to the destination and I require certain messages to use one channel over another but that is fairly rare these days.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:14 pm Post subject: Re: Messages are not coming into Transmission Queue |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| rachakonda_v wrote: |
| I believe there is an option which was done long ago, if we select that option the messages will be come into the transmission queues. |
I believe in the Easter Bunny. Doesn't mean there is an Easter Bunny.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
One programming point to bear in mind is - if the application opens a queue, specifiying a queue name and a queue manager name, and if that QM name is not the local QM - then MQ will automatically open the xmit queue (of the QM name) directly and place messages there.
Therefore remote queue definitions are not always needed, this model is often used when coding reply-to-qm name logic.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mr Butcher |
| Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 1716
|
| zpat wrote: |
| I prefer to leave out the xmitq name in remote queue definitions - assuming there is a xmit queue which has the same name as the remote queue manager name. |
queuemangernames are subjected to change. i perfer to either specify the RQ full (using a xmitq that is more application related), or use application-specific qmgr alias in RQ instead of real qmgr names. however, every shop has its own conventions or best practises here.......
@Vitor - lol
_________________
Regards, Butcher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
