Re: Sockets vs MQSeries

[Stephane Leon <sleon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for explanation.

Ok.
It works like data queue.

In fact  it is a product (MQSeries) with many compatibilities, and not functions
(accept, listen...) included IN the operating system (Os390,400, Windows, Unix
...) ?

2 questions again

Which is the faster ?

For developpement time.
Duting sending or receving messages ?


"Walden H. Leverich" wrote:

> Saying which solution is "better" is difficult, but a little info on
> MQSeries may help. The best way to describe MQSeries I've come up with is to
> say that it is data queues on steroids. Just like data queues, there is a
> client (Sends stuff to the queue) a server (pulls stuff from a queue) and
> the queue itself (stores the entries, or 'messages').
>
> IBM has MQSeries clients and servers for 30 some-odd operating systems (yes,
> three-zero) so there is wide availability of the code. Want to send a
> message from your palm to the as/400, ok. From Windows 3.1 (yes, 16-bit) to
> a linux box, no problem. Apple Mac to Palm to OS/390 to OS/400 to Linux back
> to Mac, can do.
>
> Here is the big advantage MQSeries has over sockets: The receiving system
> does NOT have to be active when the sending system sends. Just like a data
> queue, you can send a bunch of messages to the queue at 3PM and read them
> from the queue at 3AM, try that with sockets.
>
> I'm not sure I'd say MQSeries is "more standard" than sockets, nor would I
> say that it is "better", but it has it's place in the world.
>
> -Walden
>
> PS. Having said all this, I just went with sockets for a solution to a
> problem.

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---