I fully agree with LeRoy. Using a messaging service such as MQ for interactive applications is definitely not a good idea. However, this has nothing to do with WebSphere MQ per se; it is rather the nature of the communication protocol. Messaging services, including MQ, use asynchronous communications, which is great for loosely coupled systems, but definitely NOT for tightly integrated systems. So, using MQ within the context of real-time interactive applications can have a negative impact. There are better alternatives to implement web services, including the previously mentioned 3 middle-wares, in an interactive application. At the end of the day, it is the right product for the right requirement.
Craig Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Safwat, >>UniVerse has a websphere api, although consider the performance requirements >>as IBM mentioned it is not a good alternative for pooling processes. > > > What we have is a WebSphere MQ API which is different from what Tony is > referring to in his message about the WebSphere middle-tier (see next reply > to Tony). I am also not sure about the validity of the "performance warning" > claim from IBM, pls provide more details and who is the source of this > warning from IBM. I believe Leroy Dreyfuss suggested recently (~26th of April) on the list that the MQ API would not perform well for interactive web applications. The discussion was in the context of valid licencing when connecting to U2 from MQ Series so he may have meant something else -- perhaps the performance of request/response designs when using MQ Series compared to UniObjects or Redback? Craig ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
