AMQP as the protocol rather than propietary JMS. I'd prefer JSON as the format, but XML works too. The important thing on my part is that in java/python/nodejs land I should't care whatsoever on the format all I care about is that I called a method on a proxied interface in java and "magically" got the same object in my python or nodejs apps bound to the same AMQP broker. :)
Last night I actually did some hacks at transforming JAXRS311 annotations to bind to AMQP queues/exchanges and use @Paths as routing keys, buit we'll see how it goes. Thanks, James On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Bill Burke <bbu...@redhat.com> wrote: > you mean using AMQP as a marshalling format? > > On 2/28/11 10:29 AM, James Carr wrote: >> >> Even more important... REST over AMQP will be the superior choice in >> the future imho. Small messages shared between java and non java >> consumers. FTW! :) >> >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Bill Burke<bbu...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2/28/11 6:10 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: >>>> >>>> Bill, >>>> >>>> I'm starting a new thread... >>>> >>>> Comments inline. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think its fair to suggest to somebody asking about JMS integration >>>>> solutions other than CXF. We encourage such posts on resteasy mail >>>>> list. >>>> >>> >>> Especially since hornetq rest can be consumed by CXF. >>> >>>> Sure - unless we reckon we can provide something meaningful at the CXF >>>> level ? >>>> >>> >>> FYI, I've tried very very hard to minimalize, lessen, remove the >>> requirement >>> or need for a specific client framework or stack other than HTTP to >>> consume >>> hornetq's REST interface. IMO, anybody writing a REST interface should >>> make >>> similar efforts. Because, otherwise, what's the point? >>> >>> I also think we have to be very very careful from a REST framework >>> perspective to avoid marrying/coupling our frameworks to a developer's >>> application. Once you've created the requirement for a framework to be >>> installed both on the client and server, you've done something wrong. >>> >>> All this is why I piped in when somebody asked about JMS integration. >>> Because I believe really strongly about the above. SOAP+JMS is really a >>> consideration only for cross-language/platform interoperability. REST, >>> IMO, >>> is a superior approach because of the reasons listed above. Since CXF is >>> now embracing REST through its JAX-RS implementation, alternatives to >>> SOAP-based approaches should be suggested and encouraged, at least by the >>> REST guys at CXF ;) >>> >>>> >>>> P.S. Bill - you are welcome to contribute and challenge us on the dev >>>> list. Sorry if the previous thread caused you some grief :-). I >>>> believe no-one meant anything more than just a protective remark. It >>>> is obvious now it turned out to be a highly controversial one but hope >>>> such a seasoned professional as you are can accept the attempted >>>> clarifications and apologies which followed :-) >>>> >>> >>> My "grief" usually doesn't last more than 2 seconds and I've received >>> much >>> much worse grief before. If I was more professional, and I'm not, I >>> would >>> have just ignored Glen's comments. Instead, I just couldn't resist the >>> urge >>> to tweak him, for that I apologize. >>> >>> -- >>> Bill Burke >>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat >>> http://bill.burkecentral.com >>> > > -- > Bill Burke > JBoss, a division of Red Hat > http://bill.burkecentral.com >
