| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| Alias Q and Local Q - one of them Persistent |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| sebastia |
 Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 1003
|
Kevin - application programmers dont want to include any piece of code related to selecting on each message basis if that message will be sent as Persistent or not. You can say tey are low-level programmers ... cheap ones ... I agree with you. But I can solve the situation with 2 (or few more) Alias queues, so it is ok to me. I am not their judge, neither boss.
( ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
| Quote: |
| application programmers dont want to include any piece of code related to selecting on each message basis if that message will be sent as Persistent or not. |
They don't have to. The business has to. They (the application programmers should do what the business demands that they do, if they don't then fire them! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| HubertKleinmanns |
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 732
Location: Germany
|
| kevinf2349 wrote: |
| ...They don't have to. The business has to. They (the application programmers should do what the business demands that they do, if they don't then fire them! |
kevinf2349,
I totally agree!
_________________
Regards
Hubert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jsware |
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 17 May 2001
Posts: 455
|
| HubertKleinmanns wrote: |
Sorry, but this is stupid!
Only the application is available, to decide, whether a message is important or not, because it depends on the application's context!
As MQ administrator you cannot know, which messages are put to the Queue!
And you definitely cannot guarantee the persistence of a message! |
IMHO this is probably one of the reasons why admins get hit with "MQ lost my message" claim so much.
I don't disagree with what Hubert is saying entirely, but a good admin should always set the defpsist to reflect the class of message being put onto a queue. A single queue for multiple class of message is (IMHO) a bad idea but sometimes unavoidable. You can use aliases if necessary. In fact some shops may only give authority to alias queues. You thus have two alias queues, one with defpsist(YES) and another defpsist(no).
If a developer uses MQPER_(NOT_)PERSISTENT and it's wrong, its their fault. If they use MQPER_PERSISTENCE_AS_QDEF and the admin sets it wrong (leaves it as the default non-persistent), then is it the developer's fault, or the admin's fault. A bit of both I think.
Thus try and get your developers to use the correct persistence, but use a safety net to catch when they don't/can't (e.g. in package applications).
_________________
Regards
John
The pain of low quaility far outlasts the joy of low price. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| HubertKleinmanns |
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 732
Location: Germany
|
scottj2512,
the problem is, when developers do NOT want to know about persistency - who will tell the administrators, which q shall have DEFPSIST(YES) and which shall have DEFPSIST(NO)? The business people? Do you think, THEY want to know about persistency?
So in fact there are two types of administrators:
1. "paranoid" administrators - every q is DEFPSIST(YES).
2. "performant" administrators - every q is DEFPSIST(NO).
Non-persistent messages are faster and need less ressources. I am a "performant" administrator .
_________________
Regards
Hubert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jsware |
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 17 May 2001
Posts: 455
|
In our shop, the mq administrators are also integration experts who find out what the correct persistence should be, even if that means bypassing the coders and going to the application designers.
We don't talk in terms of persistence, we talk in terms of message assurance. Does the system require the assured delivery of the message (defpsis = yes) or not (defpsist = no). It does not matter then if they use MQPER_PERSISTENCE_AS_Q_DEF.
In your case, if the developers are not interested in persistency, aren't they even more likely to use MQPER_PERSISTENCE_AS_Q_DEF???
PS. I'm an "appropriate assurance" administrator 
_________________
Regards
John
The pain of low quaility far outlasts the joy of low price. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| HubertKleinmanns |
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 732
Location: Germany
|
| scottj2512 wrote: |
| ...In your case, if the developers are not interested in persistency, aren't they even more likely to use MQPER_PERSISTENCE_AS_Q_DEF???... |
Hopefully, but who knows  .
_________________
Regards
Hubert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sebastia |
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 1003
|
Hubert, everyone ... I agree
| Quote: |
| Only the application is available, to decide, whether a message is important or not, because it depends on the application's context! |
But this is Application Design stage, not Application Coding.
Or maybe in our envir we do NOT have the best programmers in the world, maybe we did rent the cheapest ones ..
So we/customer has decided not to put that load on them.
Who has to do that ? We, Admin.
And I am glad to be able to do it !
Enjoy. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
