ActiveMQ can now support AMQP clients.
Hey Folks, Just wanted to give you an update on the progress that ActiveMQ is making in supporting AMQP clients. I have taken most of the java code from the qpid project and done some major refactoring to it so that it's more inline with the ActiveMQ architecture. It now uses the ActiveMQ transport, wireformat, broker service, connector, and configuration patterns. So now it is possible to have your ActiveMQ broker support both standard ActiveMQ clients and AMQP clients like the qpid implemented java and C++ clients. The stuff that still missing is that the AMQP messages are in separate messaging domain from the ActiveMQ messages. The next set of work that's still pending is : - Need to add Unit tests! - integrating the messaging domains - implementing the AMQP persistence using ActiveMQ's message stores - porting the sasl implementation in qpid (big refactor needed to make it IOC configured). - and once we are happy with all the integration and everything is pretty stable, JMXify it! Please note that the AMQP spec is still moving so the latest qpid's clients may no long be compatible with this work, (I've been testing against qpid sources about 3 weeks old.) Hopefully qpid will do a milestone release soon and then I'll port the protocol changes that I've missed when they do that. If anybody wants to pitch in and help, here's where our amqp/qpid integration module is located in svn: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/activemq/sandbox/qpid -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: AMQP
I liked Hiram's blog today http://hiramchirino.com/2006/06/amqp-interesting-start.html it looks way too early to be able to implement this specification in a JMS provider yet as there's no standard way to map JMS semantics to AMQP yet - which would prevent JMS providers from interoperating - but I'm sure that will come along later. On 6/21/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 ! BTW IMO the spec is still fuzzy. I think they need to clarify it a bit more. But I think it's something we should be able to implement really easy. On 6/20/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI: http://www.infoq.com/news/amq AMQP looks to be an attempt at wire protocol specification like openwire or stomp. Probably good for us to look at, though the licensing probably needs to bounce through [EMAIL PROTECTED] before we do much as it is not immediately clear if it is okay. I probably is, but I'd love to get Cliff's opinion. -Brian -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: AMQP
+1 ! BTW IMO the spec is still fuzzy. I think they need to clarify it a bit more. But I think it's something we should be able to implement really easy. On 6/20/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI: http://www.infoq.com/news/amq AMQP looks to be an attempt at wire protocol specification like openwire or stomp. Probably good for us to look at, though the licensing probably needs to bounce through [EMAIL PROTECTED] before we do much as it is not immediately clear if it is okay. I probably is, but I'd love to get Cliff's opinion. -Brian -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
AMQP
FYI: http://www.infoq.com/news/amq AMQP looks to be an attempt at wire protocol specification like openwire or stomp. Probably good for us to look at, though the licensing probably needs to bounce through [EMAIL PROTECTED] before we do much as it is not immediately clear if it is okay. I probably is, but I'd love to get Cliff's opinion. -Brian
