activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Davies <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ or Qpid?
Date Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:26:06 GMT

The AMQP protocol has only been adopted by a small number of new  
messaging vendors - so far.  I'm not certain how existing messaging  
vendors are going to be convinced its in their interests to support  
it yet and currently the AMQP protocol is still stabilizing.

Have written or been involved in a number of messaging systems  
(including ActiveMQ) they all seem to follow the same pattern:

1. Get basic messaging functionality for non-persistent messaging  -  
days to  a couple of weeks
2. Introduce basic persistence - weeks to months
3. make it scale - months to years.
4. clustering/high availability - more years.

ActiveMQ is currently on stage 4.

Messaging is extremely complex, and takes a long time to get stable,  
as its usage is so varied - but I think ActiveMQ is just about there  
(I am biased).



On Aug 24, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:

> ----- "Elliotte Harold" <> wrote:
>> Has anyone tried out Apache qpid yet?
>> Any war stories to report?
>> I was wondering how it stacked up against ActiveMQ. Any particular
>> reasons
>> one might choose one over the other?
>   Well, Qpid is still pre-release.  They have made some milestones  
> available.  Also, there is no persistence in the current  
> milestones.  Qpid seems a bit of a mutant project, since Redhat is  
> still developing their own flavor of Qpid, under the Redhat  
> Messaging Server name, even though they donated most (all) of the  
> code to Qpid.  So Redhat Messaging will be Qpid, plus other  
> goodies.  They are promising some high-performance Linux specific  
> features in their Qpid.
>   Since Qpid is based on the multi-vendor protocol (AMQP, http:// 
>, it has great promise.  However, the rate of  
> milestones has been pretty slow.
> Tom

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message