Leroy,
I'm not trying to be obtuse here (and I don't mean to make you suffer, but I really think there is a contradiction between the technology and your licensing requirements).
How do you decide when I have an application talking via MQ and when I am multiplexing a user-interactive application?
If I create a service which says -- make this request and I'll give you a stock level for the product I could get requests from:
A VB client. An SAP server. An apache webserver running mod perl. Our ERP system.
If this was a popular query I might need 100 phantoms to service the request. Now how do I decide which are "user interactive"?
Someone should tell IBM to change their MQ series courseware then. One of the example I built used MQ to service a queue in this manner (not the U2 stuff, it was all written in C).costs a license. Indeed, MQ could be viewed as multiplexing type of technology, but the reality is that it's not practical to use MQ that way.
So, if you use MQ like a connection pool, that is not desirableMaybe/Maybe not, but it is a side issue to the licensing. Internet access can be slow but you don't mention that when licensing redback?
performance-wise,
So you are saying that the MQ series functionality in U2, even though it supports the MQ GID and RID fields cannot be validly licenced to use a request response model and have more than one process servicing a queue unless perhaps a phantom starts, services a request and terminates (no wonder you don't like the performance).and is a breach of your license agreement. But if you use it for applications to communicate (which is the purpose of MQ), you are not violating the license agreement. Applications would send messages back and forth as a result of something a user initiated and wasn't waiting for an answer.
Instead you can only use MQ series from U2 in a send and forget model.
Craig ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
