Home » blogs » sneakin's blog

Replies To My AMQP Post

Submitted by sneakin on Fri, 2006/08/11 - 05:52.

I doubt anyone other than myself and a few spammers follow the comments on my blog. I got a couple of decent replies to my Commoditize Messaging...Again? post. For those who have an interest in messaging, these are definitely worth reading.

Elsewhere in the messaging landscape: Alex Russell, the man who's been doing Ajax since the days it was called DHTML, has announced Bayeux multiple times.

» sneakin's blog | add new comment

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Perhaps it's just me, but it

Submitted by MysticOne (not verified) on Fri, 2006/08/11 - 14:28.

Perhaps it's just me, but it seemed their comments basically stated "AMPQ is entirely different than XMPP because we guarantee reliable delivery, and, uhh... it's for a different market." I'm not an expert in XMPP nor AMPQ, but wouldn't that simply be an implementation issue? Couldn't their clients and servers utilize standards-compliant XMPP while adding some additional features to guarantee message delivery?

» reply

Differences

Submitted by sneakin on Sun, 2006/08/13 - 09:43.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up their arguments. The bit about reliable delivery is true, and I wish it would get fixed. Some steps have been taken such as the stanza acking proposal and a JEP that allows entities to keep sending messages until they're acked.

AMPQ is a little different from XMPP. With AMPQ a server consists of a number of publish-subscribe channels, whereas current XMPP servers allow entities to connect as a node (the part before the @). An XMPP server that is like an AMPQ server would most likely take the form of an implementation of JEP-0060 (pub/sub) that only allowed server to server connections.

It's also debatable and testable if their binary protocol would have any speed advantages over an XML protocol like XMPP.

» reply

Ad's by Google