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: Compliance Test Suite
Date Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:31:56 GMT
James

AMQP is supposed to be "a message provider *protocol*" just like SMTP, or
NFS are protocols. They achieve a goal simply and well in a manner which is
broadly accessible.

So imagine for a moment you wanted to write an NFS server for an IBM
mainframe.  Mainframes have lots of interesting notions about how files are
structured, accessed, secured etc, but to make a working NFS server you'd
need to ensure that all of the concepts in NFS like an IP transport, a
directory hierarchy, POSIX style permissions and filename character sets
were all perfectly mapped.  Some of these concepts might not even exist on
source platform, and you'd have to implement them.  But you'd do it, because
you know that your clients value compatibility with standards highly.

The same is true of anyone implementing AMQP.  They may be adding it onto an
existing, perfectly fine implementation.  But that existing codebase needs
to be modified, perhaps quite a lot, to meet AMQP semantics; or clients
won't be interested.

To quote you,
"its more a case of making some new messaging providers that speak the same
wire protocol?"
 Whole new products - no; but a lot of modifications may be required to
existing brokers to achieve good compatibility - just as mainframes took
modification to support TCPIP.

If you know of an easier way to plug-and-play wire-level interoperability
without compromising functionality, I'd love to hear it.

I proposed that the AMQP Working Group create an interoperability subset of
AMQP (let's call it AMQP-lite).  This would be just enough to login, publish
to and consume from queues.   It would be easier to retro-fit onto other
middleware, but would have to be an lowest common denominator solution.
Would you like to help in such an effort?

Cheers
John


On 23/10/06, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/20/06, John O'Hara <john.r.ohara@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Important Note: - AMQP is NOT and interoperability protocol in the same
> way
> > that NFS, SMTP and HTTP are not interoperability protocols.  If AMQP
> were an
> > interop protocol it would have a very wide tolerance for semantic
> variation,
> > and a lowest common denominator sweet spot; which is definitely not the
> > case.  If you want interop, look at WS-I.]
>
> This note confused me - maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick.
>
> So are you saying that the point of AMQP is not really about interop
> between messaging providers (such as IBM, BEA, TibCo, Sonic et al) and
> for that we should use WS-I (or JMS which is how most people bridge
> them today) - that its more a case of making some new messaging
> providers that speak the same wire protocol?
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>

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