qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John O'Hara" <john.r.oh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: A question for the ActiveMQ chaps on the list...
Date Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:47:35 GMT
It would definitely be quite a small, but useful, subset.

Binding etc would be handled by some of the existing rules (are they still
in the spec?) about creating default exchanges and default bindings

The reason I wanted that in the spec was to make it easy for certain patters
of use to thunk onto JMS cleanly.
But once you go outside those patterns, there is no way ordinary JMS is
going to work -- esp. for some of the older more monolithic middlewares out
there.... [not using names]


On 22/09/06, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
> > On 9/22/06, John O'Hara <john.r.ohara@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> When James spent some time with us back on the early early days of the
> >> AMQP I got the impression that he held the view that you could plug the
> >> command verbs onto ActiveMQ and it would just work.
> >
> > Assuming there is indeed a well defined mapping of AMQP commands to
> > JMS/MQSeries semantics then yes it should.
> I think a well defined mapping of JMS semantics onto AMQP commands is
> possible and desirable. I'm not as sure that there is a mapping of AMQP
> commands onto JMS semantics.
> For example, in AMQP there is a bind command for attaching a queue to an
> exchange. What concept in JMS would this command be mapped onto?
> I'm certainly not saying that a given JMS broker could not be made to
> support AMQP. Individual implementations may well have the necessary
> concepts in which to express AMQP semantics, but as far as I can JMS as
> a specification does not so I'm not clear how a generic mapping would be
> specified.

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