activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bwtaylor <bryan_w_tay...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: actual status of activeMQ and AMQP
Date Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:04:29 GMT

I'd love to read more about the plans for ActiveMQ 6. The
http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html page is kind of sparse.


bwtaylor wrote:
> 
> Awesome! You guys are the bomb. 
> 
> I think all three of those (OSGI, AMQP, and true REST) will be very well
> received.
> 
> 
> rajdavies wrote:
>> 
>> The Architecture for ActiveMQ 6 is designed to be flexible and  
>> extensible. Its being built on an OSGI kernel -
>> http://servicemix.apache.org/SMX4KNL/index.html 
>> .
>> With the input of SonicMQ architects - we are building out the  
>> enterprise class features of ActiveMQ, but we will be accommodating  
>> more wire formats - including AMQP -as well as true restful API.
>> 
>> 
>> On 8 Mar 2009, at 04:59, bwtaylor wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>> http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 <boris.kartascheff@logica.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> -------
>>>>>> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Open Source Integration
>>>>>> http://fusesource.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/actual-status-of-activeMQ-and-AMQP-tp21092034p21671180.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/actual-status-of-activeMQ-and-AMQP-tp21092034p22395001.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/actual-status-of-activeMQ-and-AMQP-tp21092034p22403597.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message