| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| MQSeries classes for Java or MQ JMS?? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| marty |
 Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:31 am Post subject: MQSeries classes for Java or MQ JMS?? |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 4
|
Hi,
I am currently trying to make a final decision between using the MQSeries classes for JAVA or the MQ JMS classes in developing some MQ middleware in an MQ clustered environment. The docs tend to lean you towards JMS and I like the JMS interface but it fails to document any features of MQ which may not be available if you use the JMS interface. For example, COA and COD reports are nhot available?? Is anyone aware of any limitations/bugs involved with using the MQ JMS classes instead of the MQ Series classes. ANy advantages of the JMS classes other than the standard interface ,aynch listening, and Exception Listener on a Connection?
_________________
Marty |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| meekings |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 86
Location: UK, South West
|
One other advantage of JMS is J2EE compliance. This seems to mean a lot to some people.
On the negative side, JMS doesn't have any concept of bind-on-open and bind-not-fixed - this could get you into trouble if you use clustered queues and have message affinity (I believe it opens with bind-as-q-def).
JMS doesn't support message grouping to the extent that MQ does - indicating "last message in group" is an IBM extension (so makes you not JMS compliant), and there's no equivalent to "wait for all messages in group before reading", so you'll have to do all the checking for sequencing and all-messages-complete at the app level.
JMS apps put on an RFH2 header (though it's possible to disable this, either in your app (not J2EE compliant) or via JNDI), and this might be a problem for legacy non-JMS receiving apps.
JMS doesn't support segmentation, in case you need to use that. It's also slower than base Java.
_________________
Brian Meekings
Information Design, Inc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marty |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:50 am Post subject: Thanks |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 4
|
Thanks for the reply. Does anyone know roughly how much slower the JMS classes are when compared to the MQSeries classes for Java? We are very interested in performance but would like to use JMS if it doesn't limit us too severely. Is it a noticeable/significant difference in performance/capacity?
_________________
Marty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| meekings |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 86
Location: UK, South West
|
_________________
Brian Meekings
Information Design, Inc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| In addition, and I don't think marty is thinking of using these, Message Driven Beans are supposed to be roughly 30% slower than straight JMS. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
