Thanks for all your replies on this thread. I'll schedule a call to get the initial discussion going.
To that end, if anyone is based outside the UK, USA and Canada - and would like to attend, please let me know ? Otherwise, I'll try to accomodate those three timezones in the call planning. Thanks & Regards, Marnie On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Cliff Jansen (Interop Systems Inc) < [email protected]> wrote: > > My impression has been that WCF is purely an RPC abstraction. Does it > > offer traditional messaging semantics as well? > > Yes. For example, the Microsoft "StockTrader" sample application uses WCF > and MSMQ to provide the same functionality as IBM's "Trade" sample > application using JMS over IBM's Service Integration Bus - i.e. distributed > transactions over durable message queues. > > A properly coded WCF application can switch its underlying messaging > channel stack just by changing a configuration file, in the same way a Java > application can switch JMS providers without code changes. > > Cliff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aidan Skinner [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Qpid .NET Strategy - Interested ? > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Robert Greig <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 2009/1/8 Aidan Skinner <[email protected]>: > > > >> I think System.Messaging is probably more relevant to .Net, this is > >> the route that Mono has gone down with ActiveMQ and RabbitMQ: > >> http://www.mono-project.com/SystemMessaging (there was also an attempt > >> to implement it on top of our 0-8 client but that didn't work out). > > > > My experience has been that WCF is key for new .NET development. I > > have recently worked on a project that used WCF with IBM MQ, along > > with CXF (this was using SOAP over messaging). > > > > That's not to say System.Messaging is not desirable, but the WCF for > > IBM MQ saved us a lot of time and effort. > > My impression has been that WCF is purely an RPC abstraction. Does it > offer traditional messaging semantics as well? > > Having said that, I've never done any async messaging with .Net, just > synchronous SOAP-over-HTTP. I also guess it's arguable that RPC > semantics are what most people actually want with messaging, even if > they haven't quite figured it out. ;) > > - Aidan > > -- > Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing > http://qpid.apache.org > >
