Talk:IBM WebSphere MQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Viral marketing

The article says that "Websphere MQ (formerly MQ Series) is the de-facto standard for messaging across multiple platforms", but I, for one, have never even heard of it before. While I am, of course, far from omniscient, I would find it strange if I hadn't even heard the name of a de-facto standard.

Instead, might this not be a case of viral marketing from an IBM employee? I would at least appreciate it if anyone could verify the article.

Likewise, is this protocol really significant enough to be in the IP stack template? --Dolda2000 01:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


An unbiased, non-marketing based response ...
I am certainly no IBM bigot, however, I first came across references to MQ Series over 10 years ago when the original concepts of CORBA were being ironed out, and the vendors were coming forward with their own CORBA compliant 'Application Integration Frameworks'. At this time I had the opportunity to evaluate, at a high level, several of these products and in each case, when Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) was discussed (as it needed to be to enable asynchronous message passing such that the applications did not suddenly halt due to a lack of response) the MQ Series was quoted as a prime example.
I have never used the product, or even recommended it, however it remains the most well known, and from my experience most widely implemented, MOM tool in use.
With Networks becoming more reliable over time, the relevance of MOM may be seen to be in decline (particularly in LAN implementations), but it does still have a place in many EAI type environments and can make up for the defficiences of wide area application integration, though the later introduction of persistent Broker/Client type EAI tools, such as webMethods, clouds the issue even further.
In my opinion, MOM tools certainly should be discussed in relation to Enterprise Networking. MQ Series is a prime example of such a tool, and if it really is deemed to be a de-facto standard, then maybe it should also be included.

-- Dave Cullen, 29th September, 2005

Neither do I (an IBM employee). However, and at least, in Brazil MQ Series is a de facto standard. The Brazilian Central Bank defined a system knows as SPB (Sistema de Pagamentos Brasileiro - Brazilian Payment System) where MQ Series is a pre-requirement for banks could communicate with Central Bank. In some banks, (like Deutsche Bank and Bradesco) MQ Series is also used to internal processes. --- RodrigoLopes
While IBM do say the same thing, a Google search for ' MQSeries de-facto ' shows that it's the view is upheld widely.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.92 (talkcontribs) 15:43, 23 November 2005
While you may never have heard of IBM's MQSeries product, it practically created the category of messaging middleware, back in 1992. Most of the follow-on MOM systems defined themselves in terms of MQSeries' behavior, especially before Sun's JMS appeared. RossPatterson 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Re "Likewise, is this protocol really significant enough to be in the IP stack template?", that's a matter for Template talk:IPstack, and in fact it was already dealt with. RossPatterson 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if MQ is a standard, but it is indeed an industry REFERENCE. I've been working as an IT consultant, and more than half of my clients (in Canada) use MQ to "glue together" big corporate systems. It is the most reliable and cost effective method for connecting systems and data processes. Otherwise, they'd have to develop their own solutions, which are usually less robust and could lead to data losses (NOT a good idea in a corporate environment). And in-house development is usually mpre costly than paying for a license & customizing the tool. -- Hugo Dufort 06:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
In no way is MQ de-facto, I have removed that word. MQ is to messaging, what Oracle is to databases sure (both have similar shares in respective markets). In finance Tibco could be argued as being similarly important (akin to Sybase vis-a-vis databases), the word 'de-facto' essentially means a monopoly, something that MQ is not. Simonjl


I looked up what some of the IT analyst firms were saying about MQSeries / WebSphere MQ such as Gartner and Wintergreen. It certainly seems to be a defacto standard as far as percentage of customers in the enterprise messaging space is concerned. They seem to be quoting numbers of 70%-80% of customers in that segment using it. Marqo 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Barring Disk failure"

Is it actually the case that a disk failure would cause a typical MQ installation to fail? If so, it's rather less omnipotent than I've been led to believe. PeteVerdon 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Not unless you were foolish enough to deploy a critical facility on hardware that isn't reliable and recoverable, isn't backed up, yadda yadda yadda. I believe the phrase was intended to convey the fact that a message, once sent, will be delivered, period, surviving re-boots etc. RossPatterson 00:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move