MQ in the house...

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #112,666 by slugbug 8/4/03 2:54:35 PM Reply	MQ in the house... Yes, you need MQ in house. You'll need a config that includes sender and receiver channels on both sides. Having said that, you might consider Websphere 5 in this case as it includes a light version of MQ that should suffice for your purpose.
Post #112,667 by admin 8/4/03 3:06:48 PM Reply	Well, looking at something like Sonic MQ I see that they have a bridge into their JMS server. Does such a bridge still require a local MQSeries server? How is WebSphere these days, anyway? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #112,750 by slugbug 8/5/03 10:24:35 AM Reply	boxley is correct... ...if you use Websphere 5 (or SonicMQ) you can avoid a full blown install of MQ. Websphere has definitely improved from the really buggy days of the 3.x releases. Version 5, in particular, has some interesting clustering functionality that I'm testing right now. It allows an instance to ride over multiple physical machines (running the same or different OSes) during runtime.
Post #112,696 by boxley 8/4/03 5:46:49 PM Reply	our dev guys use websphere because of the builtin MQ stuffs, it allows a sender, receiver and a controlling channel, but send and receive is all you need. thanx, bill questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]

JMS, MQSeries, Oracle - (admin) - (6) - Aug. 4, 2003, 12:30:16 PM EDT

you need mq in your house - (boxley) - (1) - Aug. 4, 2003, 01:58:18 PM EDT

No possibility of a bridge? -NT - (admin) - Aug. 4, 2003, 02:20:14 PM EDT

MQ in the house... - (slugbug) - (3) - Aug. 4, 2003, 02:54:35 PM EDT

Well, looking at something like Sonic MQ - (admin) - (1) - Aug. 4, 2003, 03:06:48 PM EDT

boxley is correct... - (slugbug) - Aug. 5, 2003, 10:24:35 AM EDT

our dev guys use websphere because of the builtin - (boxley) - Aug. 4, 2003, 05:46:49 PM EDT

CFOC!
48 ms