> > But not one that allows access to AMQP functionality. I don't see why > the AMQP WG couldn't provide a set of Interfaces and a client lib > could then implement jmx.Session and amqp.Session. Then again I've > never had any exposure to CORBA to know what they did wrong. Is the > lesson simply never to provide an API? That seems a bit harsh. >
Two reasons. Defining an API is time consuming and difficult given the no of languages we have. Also they differ from object oriented to procedural to functional. So obviously there will be different views on how best it should be done in a given language. I heard of client implementations in the following languages so far. java, c++, python, ruby, erlang? , javascript - and most like C and perl. The second reason is more political. I think it is a very difficult exercise to get agreement over the API from different vendors. Everybody will think their API is the best - atleast thats what happend with CORBA. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1142044&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=24831971&CFTOKEN=13722890&ret=1#Fulltext Regards, Rajith
