| Author |
Message
|
| javagate |
 Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:20 pm Post subject: single file change (BAR file) |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 159
|
Greetings,
long time no see.
Sorry for such a newbie question, but like with WebSphere Application Server using Wsadmin is it possible to make a single file change with WBM rather then deploy the whole BAR broker archive file?
_________________
WebSphere Application Server 7.0 z/OS &
MQ 6.0. I work with WebSphere in the real world not in some IBM lab. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| adubya |
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 377
Location: GU12, UK
|
Bar file deployment is your only means of deploying new message flows.
You can put however many flows you want in a bar and deploy that bar file without removing existing flows in the target execution group. So if you want to deploy just one flow then create a barfile containing that flow and deploy it.
_________________
Independent Middleware Consultant
andy@knownentity.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
With WAS, it's easy and a reasonably good idea to develop solutions that use properties files to store configuration data.
With IIB it's easy and a reasonably good idea to use User Defined Properties or database columns or data stored in the Global Cache to store configuration data.
With IIB it's harder and a reasonably bad idea to use a properties file to store this data.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mayheminMQ |
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 04 Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Location: UK beyond the meadows of RocknRoll
|
Very risky question:
When we generally use UDP, we end up using PropertyFiles to have different values vs different environment setup.
| Quote: |
| With IIB it's harder and a reasonably bad idea to use a properties file to store this data |
why would you say it is a reasonably bad idea? Is it on lines of security or have I misread your reply ?
_________________
A Colorblind man may appear disadvantaged but he always sees more than just colors... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mayheminMQ wrote: |
Very risky question:
When we generally use UDP, we end up using PropertyFiles to have different values vs different environment setup. |
Why? What changes between environments that you can't handle with a UDP or a promotable property?
| mayheminMQ wrote: |
| why would you say it is a reasonably bad idea? Is it on lines of security or have I misread your reply ? |
Well for one thing you have to do a lot of dancing inside each and every flow to make this happen. There's no provided way to read a property file so you need a FileRead node somewhere to read the file, parse the contents and store them someplace. Then let's take a fairly common example; a web service all that varies from environment to environment. In Prod it's
| Code: |
| www.someplace.com/dostuff |
but in QA it's
| Code: |
| www.qa.someplace.com/dostuff |
You need code prior to each SOAPRequest node to pick up the URL (or sufficient environmental data to calculate the URL), add that as a LocalEnvironment item and pass that to the SOAPRequest node. Each and every time you use a SOAPRequest node in any flow.
Or you can just promote the URL property of the SOAPRequest node and set it to the correct value when you deploy it. No additional code, files or other logic needed. Behold the savings in code execution, code errors (and even if you have all this as cut and paste examples, someone's going to fat finger it), files on servers you don't need to secure, maintain or update and most important you can ask the broker what the contact admin is going on rather than guessing which file the code's using for the rather dodgy values you've got.
And yes, you can have a common location and naming standard for properties files. That's going to work just as well as the common code for handling the contents and don't you just wish there was a better way built into the product?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
Reading a proprty file every time you read a message is a horrible waste of time, resources and a dozen other things.
Using a UDP or a Cached DB table is far more efficient.
How often does the data in the properties file change?
In Broker you have to go out of your way to read a properties file. IIB/Broker is NOT a J2EE App server sp please stop thinking that it is.
My favoured location for properties in is a DB table.
we have a standard sub-flow that reads the data once every 24 hours into a shared variable (Row type). Every other time, the shared varible is read
The data is keyed on the Flow name.
Not using properties files all is a good thing IMHO.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
You also have to have some way to re-read the contents of the properties file at some point when it changes... Or at some regular interval in case it changes.
You also have to figure out some place to put the properties file that is readable by whatever method you're using.
You also have to create a *separate* deployment process to add the properties file or update it.
You can't just stick a properties file into the bar file.
Also, it's tricky at best to read a properties file from ESQL...
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mayheminMQ |
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 04 Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Location: UK beyond the meadows of RocknRoll
|
 I truly thought when MQJeff said property files, it was the property files that we create to use with mqsiapplybaroverride. Hence I was confused on why should we not use it concurrently with UDPs.
I just realised the property file that was being discussed about was property file which holds runtime details that is picked up everytime. I always used the term configuration file and misread it completely.
_________________
A Colorblind man may appear disadvantaged but he always sees more than just colors... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
Those of us who fight the good fight against Java know all about the properties files that seem to breed like rabbits in the Java world with everyone in a different directory and a different naming standard and.... Arrrggggggghhhhhh my brain hurts.
That was the sort of properties files we were talking about.
_________________
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: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| That was the sort of properties files we were talking about. |
Somewhere in the Land Beyond, Dr Ivan Pavlov is looking at our reactions and laughing his contact admin off.....
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
