Jame I agree some getting to some kind of compliance testing is necessary.. we'll probably get there later in 2007.
Also, I wanted to ask you in your capacity as Mentor, in the Apache family would it be cool to re-use code from ActiveMQ in Qpid where that makes sense? A simplistic example would be to re-use selector processing, but I'm sure there are other synergies. By the same logic, given that MINA is an Apache project (and a very good design); wouldn't it make sense to converge on that for IO processing across both projects? If MINA is lacking, we could all help make it better. I know that Robert has already contributed patches to MINA, and middleware is a great stress test for a framework like it. Best regards John On 26/10/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/26/06, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm confused where ActiveMQ is going here. > > To quote Hiram: > "It also means that the AMQP message are in a seperate messaging > domain from the JMS messages. Now that everything is integrated and running > together we can figure what is the best approach to merging the messaging > domains." > > Does this mean that the current implementation is a "cut and shunt"? Where > two implementations are parked in the same address space? > > I'm hoping that the ActiveMQ folk's interest in AMQP is not just a "box > ticking" exercise for marketing purposes, and that it's a genuine effort to > engineer a correct AMQP solution. It is. Its one of the reasons why folks from the ActiveMQ community keep harping on about wanting a good TCK for AMQP. We've bitter experience with TCKs (particularly the J2EE TCK :) but what it does provide is a great comfort feeling that providers that pass the TCK really are compliant. Without a TCK, complex specs take lots of vendor get togethers to make them work (as the WS-* folks have found out) and interop between providers suffers causing users much pain. > The possibilities for damaging an emerging standard here are enormous; I > hope that everyone on the mailing list cares about the success of the AMQP > protocol, and understands the need to work towards good interoperating > implementations and the need *NOT* to confuse the market. You've confused me again :) How does ActiveMQ supporting the AMQP protocol confuse the market? > Have the ActiveMQ folk committed anything to the Qpid code tree FWIW Hiram certainly isnt a committer on Qpid nor is the ActiveMQ community in general > which isn't > driven by a desire to import Qpid into ActiveMQ? The desire is to share code - partlcularly the low level Qpid framing code. We're all Apache folk afterall and projects are meant to work together & share code where it makes sense to do so. Ideally qpid and ActiveMQ would share a large chunk of ocde for the AMQP framing stuff; though right now its hard to do that as qpid is not terribly easy to reuse and is based on MINA and ActiveMQ has its own transport framework. > I most sincerely hope the answer is yes. BTW did you see Hiram's patches to the qpid code generation stuff, which is pure qpid code and has nothing to do with ActiveMQ at all other than making it easier for other projects to reuse Qpid code? -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
