This is an IBM Automation portal for Integration products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).
We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:
Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,
Post an idea.
Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.
Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.
Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.
IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.
ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.
Thank you for taking the time to raise this enhancement request, and also for the wider discussion which occurred through your ticket. For the benefit of other readers, the initial core problem which was experienced related to the attempted stop of a message flow which contained a TCPIPClientReceive node. The integration server was waiting for the message flow to complete its in-fligt work before being stopped. The ticket also discussed use of the "Close with unprocessed data" option which can be exploited if you don't want to wait for in-flight TCPIP work to complete. That conversation made it clear that you would prefer not to use that setting, but also specifically would prefer not to block other administrative actions. It would be possible to change ACE behaviour which currently deliberately blocks this kind of concurrency of requests - this behaviour currently protects the server in circumstances where the separate admin requests can influence one another due to changes to shared dependent artifacts. More complex locking code could be written to make the locks be taken out at a more granular level, but this would be a significant undertaking for what we suspect is a fringe use case which is only rarely encountered. Given this, we have no opposition to the requirement but would currently view it as a low business priority. As usual of course, we are open to comments to the contrary from our community. Status is moved to Future Consideration.