Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rambling away…
About
BROWSE
WebSphere MQ Server with Posted by: imranadeel | July 17, 2010
Temenos T24: Part 2
Monthly Archives
This is the second entry on MQ Server with T24. The previous entry can be found here.
If you read my last post, you would think that I am saying it’s OK to use T24 without LINKS
MQ Server. It’s not. I will shed light on various aspects of it as I go along.
WordPress.com
First off, MQ offers message persistence; not having which means that if you have a WordPress.org
server crash or your network goes down, the messages will be lost either at a host, or
in transmission. For instance, a teller clicked on the option to deposit cash in a SUBSCRIBE
customer’s account. The request came to the application server, and then went to T24
server. Now, the server processes it and responds with confirmation. On the way
back, the web server went down, or the network broke. Now the teller will not receive Entries (RSS)
anything except a timeout message (in case of a network failure), or nothing at all (if Comments (RSS)
the web server crashed). But the transaction has already been committed at T24. The
teller would try to re-login and post the transaction again. If the failed component is
up, the transaction would go through, and the teller would get a confirmation from
T24. So now T24 would have two transactions instead of one.
Message persistence could have been of help here, if implemented with some level of
clustering at the web (and application) server and MQ server levels. Like had there
been a web server crash, and there were two web servers clustered together, then the
other web server would have been able to receive the message – only if there had been
an MQ server, from where it could poll the incoming messages.
Similarly, if the T24 server goes out of business right when a teller sends a withdraw
request, MQ would hold it till T24 server is back. TC Server will pick the message from
the MQ’s “IN” queue and process it; all this without the teller actually knowing that
there was a problem. This, of course, assumes that the T24 server is back within a
time span not longer than long enough.
But therein lies another problem. You see, you configure timeout on every browser
channel. This is typically 180 seconds (3 minutes). If the web server doesn’t receive a
response from T24 (or MQ) within this time span, it will time out, and show the user
the error screen. The user can then only go to the login page, which the web server
hosts. So even if MQ is holding a message in its queue, and the other party/network is
not back within 3 minutes, the session is going to time out anyway, and the user will
not be able to use the same message. It will be “orphaned out” in MQ, as no party
would be interested in taking it. MQ server will wait till its timeout setting allows it,
and then remove this message from its main queue, and put it in the Dead Letter
Queue. So even if you have MQ server, if the transaction is delayed for 3 minutes (or
whatever is your timeout setting at the browser/TC Client and TC server levels), the Follow
session would expire anyway, thus essentially ignoring whether the transaction ever
went through or not.
My advise here is that the IT executives should tell their users in the T24 early
adoption/training sessions that if they face a timeout after posting a transaction, and
have to login again, they must first check whether the transaction they just posted
actually went through or not.
In my next post, I will explain the scenarios where MQ Server really comes into play as
an essential component in the core banking system. Your feedback and comments are
always welcome.
Imran.
Rate this:
2 Votes
Like
Be the first to like this.
Related
RESPONSES
Imran.
Thanks for your response. Can you guide me if By: ISM on January 18,
there are any specific threats which i one 2011
should look into for MQ server. at 3:01 pm
thanks
Pierre
Imran.
Reply
Imran.
Thanks in advance
Hi Imran. I have a small issue with the last part By: antony gitonga on
about the ESBs “We have experienced T24 March 14, 2013
integration with external apps via an ESB and at 5:46 pm
ISO:8583, both. I particularly liked the ease of
Oracle Service Bus (OSB) 11, while IBM MessageBroker Reply
also works. But remember: MQ and ESBs only take care
of the transport part. Giving your requests the right
format is up to you, your client bank, and its T24
implementation partner.” Ideally anything that calls itself
an ESB should be able to do just more than transport
roles in the scenario. A general ESB definition should be
middle ware that performs data transformations,
protocol conversions, routing, complex event processing,
monitoring as well as be standards compliant.
In a typical scenario the ESB would take the request in
whatever format and protocol you give it eg ISO 8583
Over TCP IP, parse it and map it to OFS XML and output
in on MQ at a specified WMQ Queue in this case MQ IN
Queue where the TC Server can pick it up and send it to
the back end.
I have had the pleasure of implementing a WebSphere
Message Broker Work flow using WMB Tool kit which did
this exact same scenario above and has been
implemented successfully already …. We are integrating
Temenos R7 feeding it either OFSXML / ISO 8583 Data
via MQ protocol using IBM WebSphere Message Broker
V8.0.0.1.
Also gone ahead and doing caching which is now being
done out of the box by WMB V8.0.0.1
Therefore the ESB does a lot more than just transport
capabilities. With a good ESB you can integrate anything
to anything. All you need is a sample to get the data
structures needed so that the ESB can model them into a
logical representation.
Good fan of your blog by the way ! Great work By: antony gitonga on
! March 14, 2013
at 5:48 pm
Reply
Imran.
Thank you
Imran.
LEAVE A REPLY
CATEGORIES
Blog at WordPress.com.