There is a wealth of information about both of these protocols available
via your favorite search engine so I will just comment briefly here.

STOMP is the "Simple Text Oriented Messaging Protocol." As the name
suggests, it's simple and text based so it will lack some advanced features
and also sacrifice some speed for ease of use. STOMP is typically used by
very lightweight clients (e.g. Javascript running in a web browser) to send
small messages. It has good support across platforms and languages.

AMQP is the "Advanced Message Queuing Protocol." As the name suggests, it
has some advanced features and it's binary so will generally be higher
performance. AMQP's development originated in the financial services
industry which would seem to lend toward your use of it for financial
payloads. It also has good support across platforms and languages. It is an
ISO and OASIS standard (which STOMP is not).

I can't say which is more commonly used as I'm aware of lots of users who
leverage either one. That said, I'm not sure if commonality is really all
that important unless you're trying to integrate with external services
which use a particular protocol at which point the choice would likely
already be made for you. Which protocol is more "suitable" for your
use-case can really only be determined by whoever has all the details about
the use-case. The only detail you've provided so far is that you will use
the protocol for "financial payloads," but that's really very little detail
with which to make any kind of recommendation.


Justin

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 8:03 AM naveen <naveenraz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Team,
>
> Could you please guide us which is the most commonly used protocol among
> STOMP and AMQP and their business use cases of using these protocols.
>
> we are planning to implement STOMP or AMQP for financial payloads.
> please guide us which is the most commonly used and suitable protocol.
>
>
> Thanks
> Naveen
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
>

Reply via email to