Adding some information, i not familiar with ActiveMQ on SpringBoot, but in
J2EE, there is a annotation to specified the connection factory JNDI name.
e.g
@MessageDriven( mappedName = "jms/notifierQueue", activationConfig = {
@ActivationConfigProperty( propertyName = "connectionFactoryJndiNam
Rajesh
You can't do anything on the WMQ side to enable that kind of communication.
If you want a MessageProducer running against a WMQ JMS Provider to have its
messages delivered to a.n.other JMS Provider, you need some kind of bridging
agent. One solution could be the WebSphere Message Broker, wh
Thanks for the clarification, Gary.
So in that case my only other advice to Peter would be to ask his client to
ensure they have configured an appropriate level of security on the WMQ
side.
*goes off to think about trying all of this out*
-
Andy Piper
IBM WebSphere Messaging Community Lead
h
ActiveMQ will deal with the local "buffering", the bridge is a jms
consumer/producer or producer/consumer and in the case of erroring out
of client connections (SVRCONN), it will reconnect and resume. Any
pending messages will remain on the local ActiveMQ broker.
On 1 June 2011 10:42, andypiper
Simply because I don't know of another messaging server that will connect to
a WMQ queue manager over sender/receiver channels, and if you use client
connections (SVRCONN) you'll have no local queueing and have to handle
connection broken error conditions in your app.
Again, I may be misunderstand
One last question to consolidate my understanding before I head off to the
WMQ forums.
Andy, you say:
"OK so in that case I can't see how you can get away without having a WMQ
Queue Manager (messaging server) right next to your app and doing
server<->server comms to theirs. I'm willing to be prov
Sorry - I didn't mean to introduce yet more confusion, I was just wanting to
encourage good practice/caution. There's no need for this to open any holes,
there are ways of securing a SVRCONN channel via e.g. SSL - this is fine in
native WMQ but I don't know whether the ActiveMQ bridging piece can d
The client most definitely doesn't want a security hole opened up with a
SVRCONN (the channel type you get by default when you don't specify the
channel property at all on the MQ connection factory).
Is there a secure bi-directional communication alternative between ActiveMQ
and WMQ, or is the onl
BTW WMQ client connections (via SVRCONN) are bi-directional. Sender/Receiver
channels are unidirectional and set up in pairs between Queue Managers. HTH.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-integration-with-WebSphere-MQ-tp3550031p3563911.html
Sent from
Ah I see, so this remote jmsBridgeConnector that Edan refers to would equate
to what I described as "bridge code" - essentially using the WMQ JMS classes
(you'll need the JAR containing com.ibm.mq.jms.MQQueueConnectionFactory of
course) to make a separate connection over the network using the WMQ c
Hi Edan,
I'm using ActiveMQ 5.5 and get WMQ complaints about remote channel not being
of the correct type when I have the connection factory specify a channel
property that corresponds to a receiver channel on WMQ. I posted on the
Camel users group wondering if there was an abstraction available o
Hi Andy,
Thanks for your response. We're waiting to see if the client and/or their
IBM support specialist can come up with a solution. Our application will
both send (for a synchronous request/response -- yuck) and receive messages
from them. The main problem is that their system is a mish mash o
th in a
number of ways. But since a basic remote connection works with the JMS bridge
connector, I don't see why Camel wouldn't work too.
-Original Message-
From: andypiper [mailto:andypipe...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 9:55 AM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Ac
Indeed not - WebSphere MQ predates many of the other MOM technologies around
and the sender/receiver channel can talk to other WMQ implementations at
different versions, but not to ActiveMQ.
On your comment about standards, bear in mind that JMS is an API spec and
not a protocol / implementation t
I'll answer my own question. It is NOT possible to use the IBM sender and
receiver channels in a JMS scenario. They are purely an IBM invention and
not part of the JMS spec. This is what I had thought all along. I had hoped
that perhaps some of the abstraction levels introduced on top of JMS might
Thanks bsnyder, The question on stackoverflow was my question. Thanks for
your answer. But even I update it to 2.5.6, it still doesn't work. Here is
part of my config file, I've been struggle with this for two days, I don't
know if their are other ways to get transactions to work :
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:48 PM, zzcat wrote:
>
> Hi Gary , even if I updated my spring to 2.5.6 , I still got the same error.
> Here is my stack trace. It says can't find
> "org.springframework.transaction.support.TransactionSynchronizationUtils.sameResourceFactory"
>
> actually this method does
Hi Gary , even if I updated my spring to 2.5.6 , I still got the same error.
Here is my stack trace. It says can't find
"org.springframework.transaction.support.TransactionSynchronizationUtils.sameResourceFactory"
actually this method does exist in 2.5.5. I guess there're some other
issues.
10:
that class should be in spring-jms - btw 5.3.2 was build/tested with spring
2.5.6
On 25 May 2010 14:52, zzcat wrote:
>
> I am using ActiveMq 5.32 with Spring 2.5.5. I use pretty generic
> configuration, as long as I include the
> jmsTransactionManager in DefaultMessageListenerContainer, Spring
Thanks Rob,Thanks a lot..
It is working now.. :working:
activebud wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> I am using activemq 5 , mysql 5.0.37 and
> mysql-connector-java-3.1.12-bin.jar
>
> my activemq.xml as follows
>
>
>xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";
> xmlns:amq="http://activemq.o
On Feb 1, 2008, at 5:20 AM, activebud wrote:
Marco Buss thanks for the reply , yes messages are persistence and i
can
verify it with activemq admin .but activemq server defaults display as
persistance false , i could not find nay place to make the server
defaults
to pesistance true in ac
Marco Buss thanks for the reply , yes messages are persistence and i can
verify it with activemq admin .but activemq server defaults display as
persistance false , i could not find nay place to make the server defaults
to pesistance true in activemq.xml file.
it display as follows
Configure
activebud schrieb:
Hi All,
I am using activemq 5 , mysql 5.0.37 and
mysql-connector-java-3.1.12-bin.jar
my activemq.xml as follows
http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";
xmlns:amq="http://activemq.org/config/1.0";
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
xsi:schem
23 matches
Mail list logo
