I think you would find that a dedicated MQ channel would be quite a bit faster than HTTP requests if you have a lot of them. I don't think HTTP makes sense for things that MQ Series excels at.

Mark Murphy
Atlas Data Systems
mmurphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: -----
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12/23/2016 02:05PM
Subject: Re: Are data queues reliable?



I mainly deal with transaction processing. I always design for an
acknowledgement that process was performed.


You could have a single transaction processing program waiting on a queue
and processing anything posted to it from any source (whether that be any
number of interactive or batch programs).

On a side note, I do wish IBM MQ was a lot cheaper. I always want to play
around with a messaging system on the IBM I.


Data Queues offer most of the functionality of MQ, so I've never found a
reason to pay extra for it.

MQ is arguably intended for inter-system communications. Now we have HTTP
sending and receiving for that.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.