I've been documenting my discoveries in WAS 6. Along the same lines, there's a good article now on developerWorks, "A quick guide for migrating to IBM WebSphere Application Server V6."
If the title didn't tip you off, the article is about migrating your J2EE apps from previous versions of WAS--V4 and V5--to V6. The authors are a couple of IBM's WAS testers in charge of making sure that migration works, so they should know what they're talking about. The article talks about how to use the migration wizard and the migration command line tools, how to migrate a V4 multi-node or V5 cell to a V6 cell, and even how to rollback to V5 if need be.
Also check out the WebSphere Application Server V6 Migration Guide (SG24-6369-00), one of the WebSphere Redbooks. Two of it's co-authors are ISSW's own migration expert Wayne Beaton and ISSW honorary member Tom Alcott.
Bobby Woolf: WebSphere SOA and JEE in Practice
From archive: May 2005 X
I've been talking about some of the new stuff in WAS 6. I've also mentioned that one of the blogs I read is Billy Newport's blog. There is now an interview with Billy Newport on The Server Side.
Billy Newport is one of the main developers WebSphere Application Server; lots of good stuff is in the product because he put it in there. And so he's also very knowledgable about how those parts work. He's one of the main developers behind WebSphere Extended Deployment (WXD) as well as WebSphere 6.0 high availability with shared file systems.
In the interview, Billy mostly talks about WXD:
Often when I'm talking to people (and it does happen), I mention "I have an article about that." (Some might say I mention this too frequently. Eh, let them get their own blog!) So then they ask: What all articles have you written? (And, no, these aren't just people who owe me a favor.)
Jerry Seinfeld has a bit: Have you ever noticed that doctors are the most insecure people in the world? When you go into their office, on the wall behind their desk are all their diplomas. It's like they're saying, "Hey, I really did go to medical school, you know."
Anyway, I don't know why that story occurs to me just now, but let me show a list of articles I've written:
Have I mentioned that I'm a co-author of two books?
I've also written a few book chapters:
My friend Don MacQueen has even scanned most (all?) issues of the Smalltalk Report, including many (all?) of my articles (geez, this is like looking through your old high school yearbook):
So, I hope you find something interesting in there somewhere.
I'm discussing the WebSphere messaging products, specifically the basic WebSphere MQ topology: a bunch of queue managers connected by a bunch of channels. A related issue is: How exactly does an application connect to the WebSphere MQ messaging system?
The application runs in one process while WebSphere MQ runs in a separate process (several of them, actually). So the application needs some way to connect to WMQ. What the application is actually connecting to is a queue manager (see Parts of WebSphere MQ). There are two ways for an application to connect to a WMQ queue manager:
A rule of thumb is that a bindings connection is at least 30% faster than a client connection, because of the overhead of TCP/IP. OTOH, client connections can be secured; more on this in a future post.
For a WAS app, you specify the connection mode when configuring a JMS Connection Factory in your WAS server; see the transport type property in WebSphere MQ connection factory settings. For a WAS 6 application using the default messaging provider of the service integration bus, the messaging system is built into the app server, so the connection is always effectively bindings mode.
Client connections have their place. However, whenever possible/practical, I prefer to use binding connections. I'll discuss/justify this blanket statement in my next posting.
I mentioned that the new Hitchhiker's Guide movie sucks. This has lead me into a discussion of how good sci fi books often become lousy movies. (Sorry, no more WebSphere info again today.)
Fellow IBMer Bernie Margolis pointed me to a very extensive Hitchhiker's Guide movie review (long w/spoilers, short w/o spoilers). I didn't like the movie; this guy, MJ Simpson, hated the movie.
I have to say, MJ's review is more interesting than the movie was. Some of my favorites from the review:
Whatever your favourite line from Hitchhiker's, there's a good chance that it won't be in the film.
... the film also suffers by having an entirely nonsensical plot. It is driven by convenience and unexplained happenings. Characters just happen to be where they need to be and have what they need to have, even if it makes no sense for them to be there or to have that.
MJ seems to have memorized the books and compiled excrutiating detail on how the movie varies, pretty much always for the worse. I haven't seen a comparisson this detailed since the Lord of the Rings movies ended.
Bernie and I discussed other good sci-fi books that have been made into movies. Hitchhiker's Guide reminds me of The Fifth Element, in that it looks otherworldly, but it makes no sense, and the more you try to understand it, the worse it gets. But the second time I saw it, I just accepted it all as fact and had a good time; I don't see that helping Hitchhiker's Guide. Blade Runner is very different from the book, but good in it's own right, especially the director's cut.
Likewise, Starship Troopers wasn't an adeptation of the book--they only had the title in common--but a cool movie if you could get Heinlein out of your head and enjoy the campiness of the movie (like the WWII-style propaganda reels where you could click on a Macintosh-style menu to learn more). It also shows the cutting edge of where CGI graphics were at the time (post Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park, and just before Titanic).
And I already mentioned Dune, widely regarded as perhaps the single best science fiction book of all time. Despite David Lynch's best efforts, it still made for a pretty confusing movie, and one they didn't even have the budget to finish.
So it seems that I'm pretty forgiving of a movie based on an excellent book that isn't very true to the book, as long as it's a good movie in its own right. The problem with Hitchhiker's Guide is that not only is it not true to the book, it's just not a very interesting movie. It's not funny, ironic, or entertaining; it's just boring. Too bad they couldn't've made better use of the source material.
I haven't posted a movie review on this blog before, but I think the movie The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is probably of interest to many readers of this blog. I also apologize to any international readers in places where this movie has not been released yet (although, as you'll see, you're not missing much).
I like the five books in the trilogy a lot and I really wanted to like this movie. Unfortunately, the movie is incredibly tedious; not awful or stupid or shockingly bad, like when a movie totally ruins a book, but just very very boring. Stuff which seemed clever and interesting and psudo-scientific in the book(s) repeatedly fell flat in the movie. It was like watching a standup comedian where every time he said the punch line to a joke and paused for laughter, there was none because it wasn't funny. I didn't hate the movie, I certainly didn't love it, I was just bored and wished I'd spent my afternoon doing something else.
For huge fans of the book, go ahead and see it anyway (if you haven't already) just to satisfy your curiosity. But go in with lowered expectations; they still won't be met. Think of it as a friend telling you about the book rather than you reading the book yourself. Remember Dune? Yeah, like that.
To be fair, there were a handful of people in my theater who laughed out loud at key parts and really seemed to be enjoying themselves; I believe they would've liked anything. For the rest of us, don't go see the movie unless you have nothing else to do--or, alas, go with some friends to make fun of it MST3K-style, which is hardly a compliment.
Ah well, like many good books, maybe the Hitchhiker's Guide series should just remain books.