activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bwtaylor <>
Subject Re: actual status of activeMQ and AMQP
Date Sun, 08 Mar 2009 04:59:29 GMT

There is more noise again around my shop regarding AMQP. The "AMPQ == RedHat"
assertion doesn't play because you've got RabbitMQ and Qpid. Yes, QPid
started as a Red Hat code drop, but everybody understands that Apache is
robust to domination by any one vendor, a fact that ApacheMQ and Camel both
demonstrate well. But even if what you say is true, if Red Hat is the only
vendor that comes forward with a solution for them, that's not a good place
for you to be. Nobody fears Red Hat lock in.

I do not need AMQP per se: what I need is high quality cross platform
messaging. So if you've changed your plans and aren't going to tackle AMQP
because it isn't simple to implement for existing broker platforms, why not
team up with the folks you mention and come up with something that is. I
expect that the reason the AMQP spec writers didn't come up with a solution
that could be bolted on to existing brokers is because they got the cold
shoulder from the projects you listed.

STOMP is not the answer. It's too simplistic and asking ruby and python apps
to confine their messaging capabilities to what STOMP provides is met with
the same enthusiasm you'd get asking java shops to give up JMS for it. The
stomp python clients all have various states of disrepair. The ruby one
works, but there's critical unresolved bugs related to activemq's stomp
implementation anyhow: AMQ-2137, AMQ-1941, AMQ-1873, AMQ-1807. Also stomp
won't have keep alive until v1.1 (AMQ-2019). We've seen this leak sockets to
the point where we hit the ulimit max and our broker hangs.

rajdavies wrote:
> The AMQP reality is that only new message brokers will implement it -  
> simply because you'd have to re-write the message broker to  
> accommodate it. Which is why you won't see any of the traditional  
> messaging platforms  like Webshpere MQ, SonicMQ or Tibco EMS, RV   
> implementing any time soon. We would love to offer full support for it  
> in ActiveMQ  - but that's going to take  lot of investment and a lot  
> of work.
> Its a shame the AMQP spec writers didn't concentrate on making AMQP  
> simple to use and implement for existing messaging platforms in the  
> same way STOMP did - which is why both OpenMQ and RabbitMQ  support  
> STOMP - and SonicMQ will probably being doing the same in the future  
> too.
> The AMQP protocol is open argument kinda disappears up its own  
> backside once folks realize the cost of entry - that a vendor has to  
> start from scratch to implement it - so in reality AMQP == RedHat   
> currently for enterprises.  Ironic - when the whole point of AMQP was  
> to try break vendor lock-in!
> cheers,
> Rob
> Rob Davies
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 18:49, bwtaylor wrote:
>> I'll also express strong interest in AMQP and I'll take the liberty  
>> of saying
>> that most people using stomp for cross platform integration with  
>> ActiveMQ
>> should be expressing interest. With the influx of enterprise apps  
>> being
>> written in dynamic languages, AMQP offers high end messaging  
>> features in a
>> platform agnostic way.
>> I would also caution against assuming that the people who want AMQP  
>> for
>> messaging are likely to seek you out to express that interest. If  
>> I'm a ruby
>> on rails or a django shop and I figure out I need a messaging  
>> solution for
>> cross platform integration, I'll soon have an interest in AMQP.   
>> When I look
>> for implementations I'll find RabbitMQ or Redhat Messaging, or AMQP in
>> Fedora 10 and never think about ActiveMQ.
>> In fact, if you don't support AMQP that will be a talking point  
>> against
>> deploying ActiveMQ in an IT environment where ruby or python apps  
>> exist.
>> I've already had that happen at my company and I've played down AMQP  
>> as
>> still in development, not quite fully baked, but now with Fedora 10  
>> touting
>> AMQP as a major new feature, that argument's lifespan is ending and  
>> people
>> are becoming more aware of it.
>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>> 2008/12/19 loctorp <>:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> I was wondering about the current status of AMQP implementation into
>>>> acticeMQ. On the project page it states, that there is a sandbox  
>>>> version
>>>> and
>>>> that developement has been paused.
>>>> As we are interested in using activeMQ together with AMQP we were
>>>> wondering
>>>> if this status has changed and/or are interested in the up-to-date
>>>> outlook.
>>> The status hasn't changed since that wiki page was written. Welcome -
>>> you're the first person ever to express any interest in AMQP with
>>> ActiveMQ :)
>>> -- 
>>> James
>>> -------
>>> Open Source Integration
>> -- 
>> View this message in context:
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at

View this message in context:
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at

View raw message