It's all about the answers!

Ask a question
QuestionsTagsUsersBadges
Follow this question
Question details

×42,787

question asked: Oct 06 '10, 6:04 p.m.
question was seen: 3,281 times
last updated: Oct 06 '10, 6:04 p.m.

Related questions

FAQ - How this Forum works

Running BOTH the CQ Connector and the CQ Bridge

0
Chris Kolde (21●7●2) | asked Oct 06 '10, 6:04 p.m.
Are there any reasons (technical or otherwise) that would prevent running BOTH the CQ Connector and CQ Bridge against the same CQ User Database?

In the specific scenario I am concerned with, the CQ Connector is being used to synchronize some data from CQ records to RTC work items. The fields being synchronized from CQ to RTC are read-only in RTC. However, the CQ Bridge is also being used from within RTC to provide access to a variety of records (parents and children in the CQ ALM Schema) that all eventually contributed to the need to synchronize a CQ record with an RTC work item in the first place.

The usage model of deploying both the connector and bridge seems unusual; versus deploying one or the other.

Thanks,
-Chris

3 answers

Most liked answers ↑|Newest answers|Oldest answers

0
permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35) | answered Oct 07 '10, 9:02 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
First a terminological note ... we're regularizing the CC and CQ
Connector terminology in RTC-3.0 ... in particular, "Connector" is now
the generic term for any data-level integration between two
repositories. There are three kinds of connectors: bridges,
synchronizers, and importers.

But back to your actual question, the CQ Synchronizer and the CQ Bridge
were designed to be used together, so if you encounter any problems
doing so, please report it. In general, the guidance is to initially
use the Bridge (simplest to set up), and then introduce the Synchronizer
when the Bridge does not give you all the functionality that you need.

Cheers,
Geoff

On 10/6/2010 6:07 PM, clkolde wrote:
Are there any reasons (technical or otherwise) that would prevent
running BOTH the CQ Connector and CQ Bridge against the same CQ User
Database?

In the specific scenario I am concerned with, the CQ Connector is
being used to synchronize some data from CQ records to RTC work
items. The fields being synchronized from CQ to RTC are read-only in
RTC. However, the CQ Bridge is also being used from within RTC to
provide access to a variety of records (parents and children in the
CQ ALM Schema) that all eventually contributed to the need to
synchronize a CQ record with an RTC work item in the first place.

The usage model of deploying both the connector and bridge seems
unusual; versus deploying one or the other.

Thanks,
-Chris
0
permanent link
Chris Kolde (21●7●2) | answered Oct 07 '10, 9:45 p.m.
First a terminological note ... we're regularizing the CC and CQ
Connector terminology in RTC-3.0 ... in particular, "Connector" is now
the generic term for any data-level integration between two
repositories. There are three kinds of connectors: bridges,
synchronizers, and importers.

But back to your actual question, the CQ Synchronizer and the CQ Bridge
were designed to be used together, so if you encounter any problems
doing so, please report it. In general, the guidance is to initially
use the Bridge (simplest to set up), and then introduce the Synchronizer
when the Bridge does not give you all the functionality that you need.

Cheers,
Geoff


Thanks Geoff,

Just so I am perfectly clear, we intend to run the synchronizer and bridge simultaneously. Still OK to do? I inferred from your reply a sequential migration, if I can use that term, from bridge to synchronizer.



On 10/6/2010 6:07 PM, clkolde wrote:
Are there any reasons (technical or otherwise) that would prevent
running BOTH the CQ Connector and CQ Bridge against the same CQ User
Database?

In the specific scenario I am concerned with, the CQ Connector is
being used to synchronize some data from CQ records to RTC work
items. The fields being synchronized from CQ to RTC are read-only in
RTC. However, the CQ Bridge is also being used from within RTC to
provide access to a variety of records (parents and children in the
CQ ALM Schema) that all eventually contributed to the need to
synchronize a CQ record with an RTC work item in the first place.

The usage model of deploying both the connector and bridge seems
unusual; versus deploying one or the other.

Thanks,
-Chris
0
permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35) | answered Oct 07 '10, 10:41 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
To clarify, once you have concluded that the Bridge is not sufficient,
then either replacing the Bridge with the Synchronizer, or enhancing the
Bridge with the Synchronizer, is reasonable. So using both together is
a reasonable and supported configuration.

Cheers,
Geoff

On 10/7/2010 9:52 PM, clkolde wrote:
gmclemmwrote:
First a terminological note ... we're regularizing the CC and CQ
Connector terminology in RTC-3.0 ... in particular,
"Connector" is now
the generic term for any data-level integration between two
repositories. There are three kinds of connectors: bridges,
synchronizers, and importers.

But back to your actual question, the CQ Synchronizer and the CQ
Bridge
were designed to be used together, so if you encounter any problems

doing so, please report it. In general, the guidance is to
initially
use the Bridge (simplest to set up), and then introduce the
Synchronizer
when the Bridge does not give you all the functionality that you
need.

Cheers,
Geoff


Thanks Geoff,

Just so I am perfectly clear, we intend to run the synchronizer and
bridge simultaneously. Still OK to do? I inferred from your reply a
sequential migration, if I can use that term, from bridge to
synchronizer.



On 10/6/2010 6:07 PM, clkolde wrote:
Are there any reasons (technical or otherwise) that would prevent
running BOTH the CQ Connector and CQ Bridge against the same CQ
User
Database?

In the specific scenario I am concerned with, the CQ Connector is
being used to synchronize some data from CQ records to RTC work
items. The fields being synchronized from CQ to RTC are read-only
in
RTC. However, the CQ Bridge is also being used from within RTC to
provide access to a variety of records (parents and children in the
CQ ALM Schema) that all eventually contributed to the need to
synchronize a CQ record with an RTC work item in the first place.

The usage model of deploying both the connector and bridge seems
unusual; versus deploying one or the other.

Thanks,
-Chris

Your answer

Register or to post your answer.


Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.