From users-return-28745-apmail-activemq-users-archive=activemq.apache.org@activemq.apache.org Tue Sep 6 09:20:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 987B27CB9 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 09:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 64340 invoked by uid 500); 6 Sep 2011 09:20:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 64156 invoked by uid 500); 6 Sep 2011 09:19:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 64148 invoked by uid 99); 6 Sep 2011 09:19:48 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:19:48 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of chubrilo@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.43 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.43] (HELO mail-fx0-f43.google.com) (209.85.161.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:19:42 +0000 Received: by fxg17 with SMTP id 17so5036368fxg.2 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 02:19:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=wDDQGK+F/wIG852qmnqkDZXGitmvyINifkpsrDmMEQ8=; b=h7SJl+JhlldoooOl92gs71hIHnBJ4DUcJvoOD4ZnAcGcdqnIjqSvVpcZq/OBfhNL7v aAP6coVcxnRv29KomDz4B4pUVSwLIxOn/XRWVOUSUGNTIASBsrfqpmqN4Lcr0jskO1rg XURN0x7DklqlrGQfB2vnvT6xYzyokdXw/6xg8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.55.209 with SMTP id v17mr1270670fag.77.1315300762161; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 02:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Sender: chubrilo@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.86.131 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 02:19:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1315260619.46700.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1315260619.46700.YahooMailNeo@web120305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:19:22 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8NsnZWWatPMV7GlmQekTL5leNOs Message-ID: Subject: Re: STOMP Vs RESTful to consume incoming messages From: Dejan Bosanac To: users@activemq.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517448060b3913f04ac425289 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001517448060b3913f04ac425289 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Ravi, the general recommendation is Stomp as it's more "messaging-oriented" protocol than REST. With Stomp you can use all semantics important for asynchronous messaging like transactions, various types of acknowledgment modes and such. Also, the protocol is easy enough http-like so there are a lot of clients for it already in many languages. Regards -- Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb ----------------- The experts in open source integration and messaging - http://fusesource.com ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ Blog - http://www.nighttale.net On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Ravi Julapalli wrote: > Hi, > I am working on a new project that requires us to consume incoming messages > over ActiveMQ > The application consuming messages is a web app built in PHP. > > The recommendation of our solutions architect is to use STOMP for > retrieving messages. > I read through docs and understand that ActiveMQ does provide REST > interfaces to consume messages. > However I am not fully sure of what advantages REST might have over STOMP > and vice versa. > > I will greatly appreciate if someone can provide a bit more information for > us to be able to make a informed decision. > > best regards, > Ravi > --001517448060b3913f04ac425289--