How to use IBM MQ as a JMS Provider?

Answer 1

Chapter 8.2 on session pools in the 1.0.2 spec seems to make no real mention
          of transansactions. If not could you point exactly where? What steps would
          one use to cause a foreign messaging-server to infect an async message
          with a JTA transaction using Chapter 8.2 session pools?
          Chapter 8.3 describes the XA libraries, which are not related to session pools.
          The general community feeling on Chapter 8.2 SessionPools is that in almost all
          cases they are
          inferior to MDBs. To make it worse, they are not a required part of the J2EE
          spec. Their
          only real advantage is that they can pool access to a single topic subscription.
          Nice, but hardly
          worth the trouble. Just brainstorming here, but the elegant solution here
          seems simple: extend
          the JMS spec to allow multiple consumers on a single subscription. This would
          also nicely solve
          one MDB/topic problem, as even with SessionPools, there is no way to have MDBs
          on multiple
          servers share a single subscription...
          I don't think the spec states that SessionPools should run on a client. I'm
          fairly sure
          that SessionPools were intended to be a server-side entity. The numerous
          repetitions stating
          that the MessageListener runs on the app server and that the app server controls
          the threads seems to support
          this. It is an extension past Chapter 8.2 to get them to work off-server.
          (Albeit potentially a nice one, if
          one is absolutely determined to use these things instead of MDBs.)
          Maciej Szefler wrote:
          > I've noticed that BEA maintains that this is a shortcoming in the JMS
          > spec -- particularly that there is no way to integrate XA messages from
          > other JMS implementations into Weblogic without the vendor implementing
          > propriatary Weblogic interfaces, I quote your FAQ:
          >
          > "The only reason this works for WebLogic Server JMS is that we have defined
          > a WebLogic Server extension interface that has a method to associate a
          > message with a transaction. This interface, MDBTransaction, is defined in
          > news://newsgroups.bea.com/[email protected]. It has one method,
          > associateTransaction(), that takes a javax.jms.Message parameter. This
          > message must be associated with the transaction. We are hoping that other
          > JMS vendors interested in integrating with WebLogic Server will implement
          > this interface. "
          >
          > "Another approach called source managed transactions, would be for there to
          > be an API to tell the JMS provider to start a transaction on your behalf
          > before delivering the message to an asynchronous consumer. This API doesn't
          > exist in J2EE either. Even if there were such a provision, few non-WLS JMS
          > providers can begin and drive such a transaction by themselves."
          >
          > I would like to know where it is that you guys came up with this novel (and
          > incorrect) position. The JMS API to do this exists, it is called ASF (JMS
          > spec chapter 8) and if WebLogic implemented it correctly then there would be
          > no problem driving XA MDBs using MQseries. The fact of the matter is that
          > Weblogic 6.1 server is simply not JMS compliant in this respect. The 6.1 JMS
          > implementation does not expose the ASF correctly (it relies on the client
          > using a special ServerSesisonPool implementation), nor does the MDB
          > container use the ASF (which I guess is understandable since it isn't
          > implemented correctly). The question is, is Weblogic 7.0 Server going to use
          > ASF to drive MDBs and is the Weblogic 7.0 JMS implemetation going to
          > correctly expose the ASF to advanced clients that may wish to use it?
          >
          > -Maciej Szefler
          > FiveSight Technologies Inc.
          >
          > "Tom Barnes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          > news:[email protected]...
          > > Clarification. See in-line.
          > >
          > > Tom Barnes wrote:
          > >
          > > > Hi Steve,
          > > >
          > > > This request comes up numerous times in this newsgroup. Since
          > > > the FAQ isn't quite up to date, here is the cut-and-paste response:
          > > >
          > > > Resources:
          > > > Resource Library/White-Papers/WebLogic Server section on dev2dev site:
          > > >
          > http://dev2dev.bea.com/resourcelibrary/whitepapers.jsp?highlight=whitepapers
          > > > jmsproviders.doc, jmsmdb.doc, jmsjta.doc
          > > >
          > > > Code Library/Code Samples/WebLogic Server section on dev2dev site:
          > > > "WebLogic MQSeries JMS Support"
          > > > wlsmqseries.zip
          > > >
          > > > Code Library/Alpha Code/WebLogic Server section on dev2dev site:
          > > > "Sample JMSBridge For WebLogic 6.0"
          > > > JMSBridge60.zip
          > > >
          > >
          > > The above is 6.0 sample code that has nothing to do the below 6.1 alpha
          > bridge, and
          > > was not developed by anyone on the JMS team. The location for the 6.1
          > information is:
          > >
          > > Resource Library/Guides and Tutorials
          > > "Introducing WebLogic Messaging Bridge"
          > > MessagingBridge61.zip
          > >
          > > (see
          > >
          > http://dev2dev.bea.com/resourcelibrary/guidestutorials/technicalguides.jsp?h
          > ighlight=guidestutorials)
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > >
          > > > The 6.1 MDB can be driven directly by standard JMS implementations -
          > but
          > > > not transactionally by vendors that do not implement the
          > > > weblogic.jms.extensions.MDBTransaction interface. Such vendors
          > > > (including MQSeries) can be made transactional by using a messaging
          > bridge
          > > > to synchronously forward MQSeries messages into WL queues that in turn
          > > > drive the MDB. The 7.0 MDB will be able to be driven transactionally
          > > > by non-WL vendors.
          > > >
          > > > The messaging bridge works with JMS implementations that implement
          > > > the standard J2EE JMS API. This bridge is available as alpha code
          > > > for 6.1, will be fully supported in 6.1SP3 (due out in June?), and is
          > also
          > > > part of 7.0 (currently released in beta).
          > > >
          > > > Tom
          > > >
          > > > steve chen wrote:
          > > >
          > > > > We like to use IBM MQ as our message provider, use Message Driven
          > Bean (Weblogic
          > > > > 6.1) as the consumer. How do we configure WLS so it uses IBM MQ
          > instead of WLS
          > > > > built in JMS as the provider?
          > > > >
          > > > > Thanks
          > >