I'd love to read more about the plans for ActiveMQ 6. The http://activemq.apache.org/new-features-in-60.html page is kind of sparse.
bwtaylor wrote: > > Awesome! You guys are the bomb. > > I think all three of those (OSGI, AMQP, and true REST) will be very well > received. > > > rajdavies wrote: >> >> The Architecture for ActiveMQ 6 is designed to be flexible and >> extensible. Its being built on an OSGI kernel - >> http://servicemix.apache.org/SMX4KNL/index.html >> . >> With the input of SonicMQ architects - we are building out the >> enterprise class features of ActiveMQ, but we will be accommodating >> more wire formats - including AMQP -as well as true restful API. >> >> >> On 8 Mar 2009, at 04:59, bwtaylor wrote: >> >>> >>> There is more noise again around my shop regarding AMQP. The "AMPQ >>> == RedHat" >>> assertion doesn't play because you've got RabbitMQ and Qpid. Yes, QPid >>> started as a Red Hat code drop, but everybody understands that >>> Apache is >>> robust to domination by any one vendor, a fact that ApacheMQ and >>> Camel both >>> demonstrate well. But even if what you say is true, if Red Hat is >>> the only >>> vendor that comes forward with a solution for them, that's not a >>> good place >>> for you to be. Nobody fears Red Hat lock in. >>> >>> I do not need AMQP per se: what I need is high quality cross platform >>> messaging. So if you've changed your plans and aren't going to >>> tackle AMQP >>> because it isn't simple to implement for existing broker platforms, >>> why not >>> team up with the folks you mention and come up with something that >>> is. I >>> expect that the reason the AMQP spec writers didn't come up with a >>> solution >>> that could be bolted on to existing brokers is because they got the >>> cold >>> shoulder from the projects you listed. >>> >>> STOMP is not the answer. It's too simplistic and asking ruby and >>> python apps >>> to confine their messaging capabilities to what STOMP provides is >>> met with >>> the same enthusiasm you'd get asking java shops to give up JMS for >>> it. The >>> stomp python clients all have various states of disrepair. The ruby >>> one >>> works, but there's critical unresolved bugs related to activemq's >>> stomp >>> implementation anyhow: AMQ-2137, AMQ-1941, AMQ-1873, AMQ-1807. Also >>> stomp >>> won't have keep alive until v1.1 (AMQ-2019). We've seen this leak >>> sockets to >>> the point where we hit the ulimit max and our broker hangs. >>> >>> >>> rajdavies wrote: >>>> >>>> The AMQP reality is that only new message brokers will implement it - >>>> simply because you'd have to re-write the message broker to >>>> accommodate it. Which is why you won't see any of the traditional >>>> messaging platforms like Webshpere MQ, SonicMQ or Tibco EMS, RV >>>> implementing any time soon. We would love to offer full support for >>>> it >>>> in ActiveMQ - but that's going to take lot of investment and a lot >>>> of work. >>>> >>>> Its a shame the AMQP spec writers didn't concentrate on making AMQP >>>> simple to use and implement for existing messaging platforms in the >>>> same way STOMP did - which is why both OpenMQ and RabbitMQ support >>>> STOMP - and SonicMQ will probably being doing the same in the future >>>> too. >>>> >>>> The AMQP protocol is open argument kinda disappears up its own >>>> backside once folks realize the cost of entry - that a vendor has to >>>> start from scratch to implement it - so in reality AMQP == RedHat >>>> currently for enterprises. Ironic - when the whole point of AMQP was >>>> to try break vendor lock-in! >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> Rob Davies >>>> http://fusesource.com >>>> http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26 Jan 2009, at 18:49, bwtaylor wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll also express strong interest in AMQP and I'll take the liberty >>>>> of saying >>>>> that most people using stomp for cross platform integration with >>>>> ActiveMQ >>>>> should be expressing interest. With the influx of enterprise apps >>>>> being >>>>> written in dynamic languages, AMQP offers high end messaging >>>>> features in a >>>>> platform agnostic way. >>>>> >>>>> I would also caution against assuming that the people who want AMQP >>>>> for >>>>> messaging are likely to seek you out to express that interest. If >>>>> I'm a ruby >>>>> on rails or a django shop and I figure out I need a messaging >>>>> solution for >>>>> cross platform integration, I'll soon have an interest in AMQP. >>>>> When I look >>>>> for implementations I'll find RabbitMQ or Redhat Messaging, or >>>>> AMQP in >>>>> Fedora 10 and never think about ActiveMQ. >>>>> >>>>> In fact, if you don't support AMQP that will be a talking point >>>>> against >>>>> deploying ActiveMQ in an IT environment where ruby or python apps >>>>> exist. >>>>> I've already had that happen at my company and I've played down AMQP >>>>> as >>>>> still in development, not quite fully baked, but now with Fedora 10 >>>>> touting >>>>> AMQP as a major new feature, that argument's lifespan is ending and >>>>> people >>>>> are becoming more aware of it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James.Strachan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 2008/12/19 loctorp <boris.kartasch...@logica.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> I was wondering about the current status of AMQP implementation >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> acticeMQ. On the project page it states, that there is a sandbox >>>>>>> version >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> that developement has been paused. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As we are interested in using activeMQ together with AMQP we were >>>>>>> wondering >>>>>>> if this status has changed and/or are interested in the up-to-date >>>>>>> outlook. >>>>>> >>>>>> The status hasn't changed since that wiki page was written. >>>>>> Welcome - >>>>>> you're the first person ever to express any interest in AMQP with >>>>>> ActiveMQ :) >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> James >>>>>> ------- >>>>>> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Open Source Integration >>>>>> http://fusesource.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> http://www.nabble.com/actual-status-of-activeMQ-and-AMQP-tp21092034p21671180.html >>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://www.nabble.com/actual-status-of-activeMQ-and-AMQP-tp21092034p22395001.html >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/actual-status-of-activeMQ-and-AMQP-tp21092034p22403597.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
