qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hiram Chirino" <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ can now support AMQP clients.
Date Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:54:50 GMT
Hi Carl,

On 10/24/06, Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hiram,
>
> Looking at the code, it looks like you run Qpid as a "parallel" broker
> inside ActiveMQ with


Yep!  No reason not to re-use an excellent amqp broker implementation.

forwarding through the IO layer. I was looking to see if there where
> areas we could work together


Yes the IO layer was hevily refactored since ActiveMQ does not use MINA.  We
also use IOC to configure the broker components.

but I can't say I see them yet as the current approach there is no
> integration in underlying infrastructure.

What are your ideas/plans or use cases moving forward?



Please re-read my original post that started this thread. I've outlined some
of the items that I would like improve going forward.  The biggest line item
in the list is integrating the messaging domains.  First off, ActiveMQ might
bring the whole exchange / binding concept right into the core.  But until
that happens we may do something simpler like figuring out a way for Qpid
queues to map to ActiveMQ queues.

I hope that the ActiveMQ broker and the Qpid java broker team can one day be
integrated and we are only working on broker.  Otherwise, I'm afraid that we
will be we-writing the same underlying bits over and over!

Regards,
> Carl.
>
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > We support all the exchanges that are currently supported in the qpid
> > server. I've got a feeling we may need to add more add more as we
> > integrate
> > into the JMS messaging domains.
> >
> > On 10/24/06, John O'Hara <john.r.ohara@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm excited by your achievement, but I'm concerned you get the
> semantics
> >> that go with the commands.
> >>
> >> Which AMQP Exchanges does ActiveMQ support?  Header? Topic? Direct?
> >>
> >> As a poor analogy; its not great to use French phrases with English
> >> words.
> >> Has anyone seen the BBC sitcom from years back - "'Allo 'Allo" ?  :-)
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> John
> >>
> >> On 23/10/06, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > thx for the clarification!
> >> >
> >> > On 10/23/06, Kim van der Riet <kim.vdriet@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > The version is 0.8.
> >> > >
> >> > > However....
> >> > >
> >> > > The original AMQP specification defined the major number as the
> >> major
> >> > > octet/10, while the minor is composed of two numbers, the major
> >> octet%10
> >> > > and minor octet (are you confused yet?) Hence major octet=8, minor
> >> > > octet=0 translates to 0.80 under this rule. (This is in reality a
> >> > > three-level version system made to look like a two-level system.)
> >> > >
> >> > > This rule has now been replaced by the more straight forward rule:
> >> > > major=major octet, minor=minor octet. So the next official
> >> release of
> >> > > the specification later this year will have major=0, minor=9.
> >> > >
> >> > > ... A recipe for confusion! ;-)
> >> > >
> >> > > Kim
> >> > > ----
> >> > > On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 13:03 -0500, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Yes!  But BTW.. it seems like at least the version I've been
> >> working
> >> > > > with,
> >> > > > the version is 8.0.  Is this right??  Or is the version actually
> >> > > > supposed to
> >> > > > be 0.8???
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Hiram
> >> >
> >> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Blog: http://hiramchirino.com

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