activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Davies <>
Subject Re: actual status of activeMQ and AMQP
Date Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:19:38 GMT
The Architecture for ActiveMQ 6 is designed to be flexible and  
extensible. Its being built on an OSGI kernel -

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
>> 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