On 7/19/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Strachan wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ian Holsman wrote:
>> Blaze is about only AMQP, a proposed standard for interoperable
>> messaging.
>> ActiveMQ implements multiple protocols. There is some disagreement
>> between
>> AMQP proponents and the ActiveMQ team regarding the desirability of
>> balkanizing messaging protocols.
>
> I'd maybe rephrase that a little; AMQP proponents see AMQP as 'the one
> protocol to bind them all' whereas the ActiveMQ team are pretty
> flexible on protocols, we prefer to let users decide to use whatever
> protocol makes sense for their requirements so we support several
> (REST, Ajax, XML, WS-Notififaction, Jabber (never quite finished that
> one), Stomp, OpenWire) and hopefully one day AMQP too.
>
Responding here as an individual, rather than on behalf of all AMQP
proponents (and I don't think I would describe myself with that label!),
I certainly don't see AMQP as the one protocol to bind them all. I agree
with you entirely that the protocol should be selected based on the
needs of the system being built. AMQP aims to add a protocol designed
for message-oriented-middleware to the set from which that choice can be
made, where currently all too often it is a product that dictates the
protocol.
It is useful to hide various protocols behind a common API, but it is
also useful to be able to implement various APIs using a common
protocol. Both approaches give the user more freedom in their choice and
more options for integration and interoperability.
Agreed. BTW even with my ActiveMQ hat and blinkers firmly on, I
welcome AMQP and hope that one day it can be used as a way to
interoperate among different messaging providers - not just one or two
open source ones at Apache :) but maybe some of the commercial
products in this space too. (Today the JMS API is the only realistic
way to bridge them).
Incidentally I think Blaze totally deserves its own podling; its a
completely different community with different goals and a completely
different code base - but I hope to see some collaboration further
down the line so that code can be reused across ActiveMQ and Blaze.
e.g. already ActiveMQ should be able to reuse Blaze's AMQP marshalling
Java code so that we can add AMQP support to ActiveMQ too. We could
maybe merge Blaze's JMS client code with ActiveMQ's so users have a
single JMS client to work with across different broker implementations
and Blaze would then be able to reuse ActiveMQ's Resource Adapter code
for J2EE 1.4 compliance.
Currently ActiveMQ has several C/C++ clients (with another client
library waiting to get through the donator's lawyers), so it might
make sense at some point to try unify the C++ clients together too so
users have a single C++ API for their messaging client and then a
number of implentations/transports/protocols to use at deployment
time. i.e. making a JMS for C++ API. (We've got a good start called
CMS in ActiveMQ...)
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/activemq-cpp-client.html
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
