Integration
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).
Shape the future of IBM!
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:
Search existing ideas
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 your ideas
Post an idea.
Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.
Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.
Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use
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.
The requirement in the client has unexpected consequences when using a transacted polling approach. Spring's DMLC does this. This gets more and more widely used. https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/issues/27987
We recognise that this is a valid requirement. However it doesn't fit with our delivery plans for the next couple of years.
As a result we are declining this Idea. While declined the Idea can still be voted, and commented, upon.
I believe the general support attitude in MQ implementation is for the queue manager to not manipulate messages on its own. As such, in order to implement this request, I believe a new attribute would be required for the QLocals, type normal:
1. BACKOUT - yes or no
- NO - default value - automatic backout of a poison message is not performed, and the current message will continue to be presented until the application deletes the message itself, or the mssage is deleted via an administrative or ancillary utility. This option preserves and perpetuates existing functionality. With 'NO' as the default value for the attribute, no code or configuration changes will be required for message processing to continue as it operates today.
- YES - automatic backout of a poison message can be performed by the queue manager when the value of BACKOUTCOUNT exceeds the value of the BOTHRESH attribute for the QueueLocal. The current message would be MQPUT to the queue defined in the corresponding BOQNAME attribute and deleted from the current queue. A COD message would not be generated, as the message has not been retrieved from the original destination and will not have resulted a definitive final disposition for the message.