| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| Handling large HTTP payloads |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Vitor |
 Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| sleepyjamie wrote: |
| I've used JSON domain originally and thats when i found the crashing in IIB TK |
Not something I've experienced and something worth poking with a stick. What version of IIB and does it still do it with the debugger disconnected?
| sleepyjamie wrote: |
| Strange to me that a primitive feature such as reference to HTTP response as an input stream is unavailable. I wish IIB input nodes, parsers and stream handlers were separate logic in the product. This would allow you to write custom input stream handling logic for HTTP Request node. From a development architecture point of view this would be more flexible |
How would this fit (he asked in all honesty) with IIB message tree style of processing, given that you can imitate it with the discussed methods?
Also one of the key value adds of IIB is this sort of processing comes out of the box, so the inept among us let the IBM code do the heavy lifting with the HTTP endpoint and just sit behind that with some code to process the message. This "custom input stream handling logic" sounds dangerously like something you'd write in Java, so why would you do it (because I'm one of the inept mentioned above and wouldn't dare attempt it) in IIB and not a WAS-based endpoint?
I still also assert that you're transforming JSON to XML.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| sleepyjamie |
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Posts: 135
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| sleepyjamie wrote: |
| I've used JSON domain originally and thats when i found the crashing in IIB TK |
Not something I've experienced and something worth poking with a stick. What version of IIB and does it still do it with the debugger disconnected?
| sleepyjamie wrote: |
| Strange to me that a primitive feature such as reference to HTTP response as an input stream is unavailable. I wish IIB input nodes, parsers and stream handlers were separate logic in the product. This would allow you to write custom input stream handling logic for HTTP Request node. From a development architecture point of view this would be more flexible |
How would this fit (he asked in all honesty) with IIB message tree style of processing, given that you can imitate it with the discussed methods?
Also one of the key value adds of IIB is this sort of processing comes out of the box, so the inept among us let the IBM code do the heavy lifting with the HTTP endpoint and just sit behind that with some code to process the message. This "custom input stream handling logic" sounds dangerously like something you'd write in Java, so why would you do it (because I'm one of the inept mentioned above and wouldn't dare attempt it) in IIB and not a WAS-based endpoint?
I still also assert that you're transforming JSON to XML. |
I would agree that writing your own custom input stream code can be dangerous, but often times there are niche cases where you might need to do this, and may provide benefit to the final solution with proper testing. The fact that everything must be formatting into a tree or the entire payoad must be buffered provides limitations in some niche cases. I guess that's where the IIB architecture falls short.
Thanks for the help  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| sleepyjamie wrote: |
| I would agree that writing your own custom input stream code can be dangerous, but often times there are niche cases where you might need to do this, and may provide benefit to the final solution with proper testing. The fact that everything must be formatting into a tree or the entire payoad must be buffered provides limitations in some niche cases. I guess that's where the IIB architecture falls short. |
If you've got a case so niche you'd benefit from this kind of custom code to process the input stream, I'd say you're halfway to a custom application anyway. In this event IIB is almost certainly the wrong place to be and you're right to say the IIB architecture would hinder you. You'd be much better off in a built-for-purpose container and keep the IIB installation for the non-niche, mainstream type of transformations.
Maybe one day IBM will produce IBM Application Bus as a complementary product to IBM Integration Bus. Or just rename WAS.......
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sleepyjamie |
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Posts: 135
|
True, in the classic sense of application vs integration you are correct.
In some cases custom purpose built container for a small and simple integration is hard to push through a large IT organization. For example often times the company doesn't want to introduce new technologies, services or complexity due to the nature of their IT infrastructure. I would love to be able to build these as simple Java Apps as a facade but I don't own the architecture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
