| Author |
Message |
 Topic: TimeoutRequest.Action = 'CANCEL' |
atommail
Replies: 2
Views: 4482
|
 Forum: WebSphere Message Broker (ACE) Support Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:58 pm Subject: TimeoutRequest.Action = 'CANCEL' |
I've already resolved problem
I had choosen passing only Message instead of LocalEnvironment and Message in ComputeNode, so it generated error 4601 Navigation to chosen mesage location failed.
Sor ... |
| Topic: TimeoutRequest.Action = 'CANCEL' |
atommail
Replies: 2
Views: 4482
|
Forum: WebSphere Message Broker (ACE) Support Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:06 am Subject: TimeoutRequest.Action = 'CANCEL' |
Hello
I have TimeoutRequest.
Next (when I get message), I want to cancel TimeoutRequest (if I will not get message TimeoutRequest will be executed ).
My problem is that I get TimeoutRequest m ... |
| Topic: bad practise or not? |
atommail
Replies: 16
Views: 14474
|
Forum: WebSphere Message Broker (ACE) Support Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:58 am Subject: bad practise or not? |
So rather then building the orderid from current_timestamp, why not use the msgId of MQMD as thats reliable enough for uniqueness
i.e. set order id = MQMD.MsgId
I don't have MQMD in my respon ... |
| Topic: bad practise or not? |
atommail
Replies: 16
Views: 14474
|
Forum: WebSphere Message Broker (ACE) Support Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:47 am Subject: bad practise or not? |
so you mean to say that you create a new unique id in request flow and send it as msg id in request
No I don't sent msgId in Request flow I have HTTP Request Node I build my order Id and I send m ... |
| Topic: bad practise or not? |
atommail
Replies: 16
Views: 14474
|
Forum: WebSphere Message Broker (ACE) Support Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:15 am Subject: bad practise or not? |
My response flow:
HTTPInput -->ComputeNode (I set CorrelId here)-->MQGet -->other things
In Compute node I don't have msgId to use it, so I use my orderId
Everybody tell me that I shou ... |
| Topic: bad practise or not? |
atommail
Replies: 16
Views: 14474
|
Forum: WebSphere Message Broker (ACE) Support Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:39 pm Subject: bad practise or not? |
I am a bit confused now ...
So, I have to make better id , and then will be ok? |
| Topic: bad practise or not? |
atommail
Replies: 16
Views: 14474
|
Forum: WebSphere Message Broker (ACE) Support Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:54 am Subject: bad practise or not? |
thanks a lot for your respond
So, I have to change ma scenario, Could you help me?
Yes, I have, but I have HTTPRequest Node in response flow and I don't have msqId here
Doesn't mean you could ... |
| Topic: bad practise or not? |
atommail
Replies: 16
Views: 14474
|
Forum: WebSphere Message Broker (ACE) Support Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:53 am Subject: bad practise or not? |
thanks for reply,
You have the original msgid from the original request via MQInput.
Yes, I have, but I have HTTPRequest Node in response flow and I don't have msqId here, so still I have to ta ... |
| Topic: bad practise or not? |
atommail
Replies: 16
Views: 14474
|
Forum: WebSphere Message Broker (ACE) Support Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:58 am Subject: bad practise or not? |
I have orderId and I use orderId instead of msqId
SET OutputRoot.MQMD.CorrelId = orderId;
Is it correct?
I don't have another idea. |
| Topic: bad practise or not? |
atommail
Replies: 16
Views: 14474
|
Forum: WebSphere Message Broker (ACE) Support Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:47 am Subject: bad practise or not? |
zpat,
Ok, but this is common scenario using msgId and correlId,
How can I aply this to my scenario, I think I can't ?
Idon't have queue nodes but HTTP Request and asynchronic response from syste ... |
| Topic: bad practise or not? |
atommail
Replies: 16
Views: 14474
|
Forum: WebSphere Message Broker (ACE) Support Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:53 am Subject: bad practise or not? |
Hello
I have to design request-reply scenario in websphere message broker toolkit.
I read that set CorrelId is bad practise, but could anybody tell my why?
or could anybody tell alternative from ... |
