| Author |
Message
|
| mqmatt |
 Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Hursley, UK
|
| dilse wrote: |
| What level of security we are looking at in V6.1 for web services? |
Some info from one of our 6.1 decks:
| Quote: |
* Message Broker now has powerful runtime security model
- Supports cross domains security processing
- Identity, Authentication and Authorization are native capabilities
- MQ, HTTP, JMS, Web Services transports can all provide identity
- Attributes on input and output nodes
* Major policy decision points technologies: LDAP, TFIM
- Authorization: TFIM, LDAP
- Authentication: TFIM, LDAP
- Identity Mapping: TFIM
* Rich identity context supported
- Type can be Username/password or X509 certificates
- Token from default or user defined message location
- e.g. {type=USERNAME, token=HTTPuser777, issuedBy=orgXYZ, appliesTo=flowABC,}
- IssuedBy can be default or user defined
- AppliesTo is fully qualified flow name resource Broker.ExecutionGroup.Flow
- Identity appears in Message Tree
* ALSO in 6.1: Simplified Basic Authentication for WS and HTTP request nodes
- TFIM can add username/password or X509 certificate to request
|
I'll be presenting this at the GSE User Conference in Kenilworth, UK 30-31 Oct, and also at T&M in Vienna, 5-9 Nov. There'll be lots of other 6.1 stuff there too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| dkeister |
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 25 Mar 2002
Posts: 184
Location: Purchase, New York
|
OK Michael. I too think someone put a gag order on the Hursley speakers at the conference. However, get them over a pint and ...
I guess we'll have to provide more than coffee and tea...
_________________
Dean Keister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
You notice that all of the information in this thread is being provided AFTER the announcement letter is released.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bill.Matthews |
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 232
Location: IBM (Retired)
|
| dkeister wrote: |
OK Michael. I too think someone put a gag order on the Hursley speakers at the conference. However, get them over a pint and ...
I guess we'll have to provide more than coffee and tea... |
Dean,
You know me - I can always be "bribed" ..
_________________
Bill Matthews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7723
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| Otherwise - did v6.0 include 100% of functionality of v5.0? Was there any reason to install v6 instead of v5? |
Well, 5.0 has less than 1 year to live (Dead Broker walking!), so I figure thats a good reason to upgrade or pick 6.0 for a new install.
Then the question is do I go for 6.0 or 6.1? If 6.1 is going to be supported longer than 6.0, and 6.1 does not omit any functionality then it would make sense to just go to 6.1.
But it seems the 2 will live concurrently. Odds are both will have the same end of service date? Either way that's at least 3 years out.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
If you haven't started any migration processes for v5, then targeting v6.1 makes more sense than v6.
If you are in the middle of migration processes, it doesn't make any sense to change where you're headed. You may decide to accelerate your next migration planning after you've finished the v6.0 migration, however.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bill.Matthews |
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 232
Location: IBM (Retired)
|
Plus, if you are targeting 6.0 - then use 6.02. plus a recent iFix plus 6.0.5 for runtime. The use of 6.0.2 will make the move later to 6.1 even more transparent to the developers since they will see the same arraignment of node "drawers" in the message flow editor.
And (shameless plug follows) if you haven't seen it - check out the developerWorks article on "12 great things about the WebSphere message Broker toolkit v6.0.2".
Plus, when you do introduce 6.1 into the mix, it can live side-by-side on the same machine - just in different directories.
_________________
Bill Matthews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqmatt |
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Hursley, UK
|
| dkeister wrote: |
| However, get them over a pint and ... |
You'd be amazed how many features started out that way  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| TonyD |
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 540
Location: New Zealand
|
| Will 6.0 and 6.1 brokers be able to co-exist on the same server? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EddieA |
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 2453
Location: Los Angeles
|
Seeing as V5 and V6 currently can co-exist, I would image it to be a huge mis-step if V6 and V6.1 didn't.
Cheers,
_________________
Eddie Atherton
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bill.Matthews |
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 232
Location: IBM (Retired)
|
| TonyD wrote: |
| Will 6.0 and 6.1 brokers be able to co-exist on the same server? |
Simply stated Yes. If you happen to use the V6 default configuration, the V6.1 default configuration names start with DEFBRK61 ...
_________________
Bill Matthews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kirani |
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 05 Sep 2001
Posts: 3779
Location: Torrance, CA, USA
|
Matt,
Any idea when we'll be able to use Message Broker in 64-bit Supported environment on Windows platform?
Thanks,
_________________
Kiran
IBM Cert. Solution Designer & System Administrator - WBIMB V5
IBM Cert. Solutions Expert - WMQI
IBM Cert. Specialist - WMQI, MQSeries
IBM Cert. Developer - MQSeries
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqmatt |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Hursley, UK
|
| Windows is not 64-bit native, but in v6.1 all Linux and UNIX platforms can have 64-bit DFEs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20767
Location: LI,NY
|
| mqmatt wrote: |
| Windows is not 64-bit native, but in v6.1 all Linux and UNIX platforms can have 64-bit DFEs. |
Does that mean we will be able to debug 64 bit EGs?
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| mqmatt wrote: |
| Windows is not 64-bit native, but in v6.1 all Linux and UNIX platforms can have 64-bit DFEs. |
Does that mean we will be able to debug 64 bit EGs? |
There's a comment somewhere that the debugger is NOT RAC anymore - it's all the Java debugger basically.
So if the actual answer to your question is anything other than "Yes", I'm shocked and appalled.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
