The reason we're using MQCicsBridge is bcoz the legacy
application team do not want to change their
code/program. Reason still unknown...:)
--- "Chan, Ian M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember the days when I was at college.  At year
> 1, I learned the Data
> General MV machine and get familiar with it. At year
> 2, we started using
> VAX.  One of my 'smart' team member rushed to learn
> it and wrote the
> 'wrapper' for most of the line commands that made it
> looked like DG MV and
> showed to us.  Some team members loved it because
> they don't have to spend
> time to learn but some hated this idea.....that's
> why IBM has bridge and
> adaptor....
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy J Clark
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 June 2003 7:17 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MQSERIES AND CICS
>
>
> wow someone that is making sense...
>
> I agree just because programmers are not bit
> flippers and are closer to
> burger flippers (due to offshore outsourcing - ooops
> I digress) is that
> necessarily a bad thing
>
>
>
>                       "Fryett.Chris"
>                       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]        To:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                       TRUST.COM>               cc:
>                       Sent by: MQSeries
> Subject:  Re: MQSERIES AND
> CICS
>                       List
>                       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                       N.AC.AT>
>
>
>                       06/10/2003 02:04
>                       PM
>                       Please respond to
>                       MQSeries List
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no shame for a poor programmer, just the
> rich ones ;-)
>
> This is part of evolution or in some instances
> de-evolution.  Look at the
> programming languages today.  Today kids or young
> developers don't know
> squat about memory or computer systems, because they
> are spoiled with
> languages like Java and Visual Basic.  Look at 'C'
> which protected most
> developers from having to do assembler.  Are we
> really wasting brain power,
> or just putting our effort towards real solutions?
> Look at MQ which
> protects the programmer from knowing the different
> transport protocols.
>
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Van der Merwe1
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:50 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MQSERIES AND CICS
>
>
> I've also seen companies getting so obsessed with
> "protecting the
> programmer from MQ complexity" (shame, poor
> programmers) that they layer
> themselves into a calling stack that is so far
> removed from MQ and the
> world of messaging in general, that it is really
> scary.  In the end the
> programmers are nothing more than changing monkeys
> that know how to read
> company specific change diagrams - and then just do
> it.
>
> what a waste of brain power.
>
> Francois van der Merwe
>
>
>
>
>                       Ronald Weinger
>                       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]        To:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                       .COM>                    cc:
>                       Sent by: MQSeries
> Subject:  Re: MQSERIES AND
> CICS
>                       List
>                       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                       N.AC.AT>
>
>
>                       10/06/2003 22:28
>                       Please respond to
>                       MQSeries List
>
>
>
>
> Oh no!
> A rebel without a queue.
>
>
>
>
>                       "Robert Broderick"
>                       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]        To:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                       OTMAIL.COM>               cc:
>                       Sent by: "MQSeries
> Subject:  Re: MQSERIES AND
> CICS
>                       List"
>                       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                       .AC.AT>
>
>
>                       06/10/2003 03:59
>                       PM
>                       Please respond to
>                       "MQSeries List"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So lets say a programmer has only to receive a
> message and process it. The
> company picks the bridge. When does the programmer
> get to learn about MQ??
>
> I have interviewed people who have worked at
> companies that allowed them
> access to MQ through their own home grown software
> (wrappers) These people
> were useless (in regards to detailed MQ knowledge).
> The company while
> pretending to isolate themselves from the messaging
> layer for the purpose
> of
> maybe changing later (remember MQ has about an 84%
> market share) (hahaha!!
> Change later?? To What??) has basically limited the
> usefulness of it's
> staff
> to accommodate change. Remember we came into
> technology to embrace ALL the
> aspects of technology not to be the porn (opps
> sorry) pawn of some
> technology wizards  corporate paranoias.
>
> If you disagree call 1-800-LACTOSS (Dennis Miller,
> not to be confused with
> our beloved DM!!)
>
>
>            bee-oh-dubble-bee-dubble-egh
>
>
>
> >From: Randy J Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: MQSeries List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: MQSERIES AND CICS
> >Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:05:59 -0700
> >
> >The Bridge simply reads the message passes it to
> your program BUT it is
> not
> >called by your program like a wrapper.  Its
> monitoring a queue and when a
> >message arrives it reads it and links to your
> program and passes the
> >message to your program in the commarea.
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in
the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com
Archive: http://vm.akh-wien.ac.at/MQSeries.archive

Reply via email to