----- Original Message ----- > 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.
Thanks Gordon! Do you mind if I post this response on my blog and credit to you? I think it would be useful for a wider audience. William > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
