On 08/22/2012 05:40 PM, William Henry wrote:
I've posted a blog entry on my journey to AMQP 1.0 from 0.8 and what
I see as the power of AMQP 1.0. It is by no means an exhaustive
technical analysis and I hope to provide more technical posts later.
It addresses concerns some may have from moving from the attractive
exchanges/queues/bindings world of 0.8 to the 1.0 spec and nodes and
addresses.
I would love some feedback.
http://ipbabble.com/2012/08/the-journey-to-amqp-10-with-apache-qpid.html
Nice post, I particularly like the title! It has indeed been a journey
and the Qpid community - all the users who have raised JIRAs,
highlighted limitations of the software and earlier protocols, all the
developers who have contributed features, patches and ideas - has been
instrumental in getting AMQP to this very exciting point.
Change is unsettling, but it can also bring great benefits. I'm grateful
that you persevered and glad you can now appreciate the greater power,
flexibility and reach of the AMQP 1.0 model.
I was more ambivalent about exchanges than you. I felt that because they
were the most visible and distinctive feature of early AMQP, they got
too much attention at the expense of other important aspects of messaging.
In your post you write:
"The real power of 0.8 was NOT in the exchanges but instead it
was in the bindings - the routing [...] the power of AMQP is
that it is a really powerful router of messages"
I would argue that routing is one of the benefits of messaging
intermediaries in general (along with store-and-forward capabilities).
The power of AMQP is that it enables interoperability between different
intermediaries and/or applications. This lets you construct your
messaging network from diverse components which gives the system
designer a richer more flexible set of tools.
I don't think we are disagreeing there, just providing slightly
different emphasis.
Also:
"The broker of 0.8 and it's exchanges, queues and bindings
provided a brilliant and dynamic routing capability mainly
through decoupling the sender from the endpoint."
The routing capabilities of early AMQP were actually fairly rudimentary
and inflexible in my opinion. They also fell a little short in the
decoupling since the destination you sent to dictated the only possible
routing algorithm you could use for those messages. The shortcomings
could be addressed by extensions, but I think 1.0 provides a far better
foundation, standardising the simple patterns while allowing freedom for
richer patterns to emerge.
I do agree that the addressing syntax as supported by the AMQP 0-10
implementation of the qpid::messaging API is at times a little complex
and awkward. I think that was largely due to the fact that it was the
control point for all bridging between the conceptual model of AMQP 1.0
and the 0-10 protocol which is actually used underneath.
Again, this was a stage in the journey we have travelled. We wanted
simple things to be simple, more complex things to be possible and
transition to 1.0 to be as painless as possible.
I am confident the mapping onto 1.0 will be much more direct,
transparent and intuitive. I'm working on a 1.0 implementation of the
API right now and will post more detail on that for comment as I make
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
