I've tried to stay fairly neutral on this issue, but FWIW here's my 2P
I guess that I'm fairly agnostic about there being two APIs, provided
there doesn't wind up being a competition, and that we stop at two :-)
Cards on the table I've come from a "traditional" connection oriented
messaging background, so I've got more familiarity with
JMS/qpid::messaging and that's where I'd naturally tend to gravitate,
but equally I've started to warm to Messenger lately and quite like
that I don't need to care about connections/sessions, it seems quite a
natural approach when there are lots of endpoints.
I think a lot of the difference does seem down to "style" and TBH that's
fine, it's often more natural for a particular application to gravitate
towards one style or another, so it's good to have the choice (as a
rubbish analogy think synchronous and asynchronous IO they both let you
do roughly the same thing, but sometimes it's more natural to do one
thing over another).
I do find Messenger a bit frustrating too though, probably because it's
a less familiar API and I don't really understand the nuances and I
really think it could do with a lot more published examples - especially
around trying to eke out the maximum throughput.
In many places I have a feeling that qpid::messaging is more complete,
FWIW I think that Gordon has done a great job on that and on the AMQP
1.0 support in qpidd. A place where qpid::messaging is *way* stronger
than Messenger (unless it has changed since I looked a month or so back)
is in the ability to set up complex subscriptions (so fancy link options
enabling selectors, named subscription queues etc.) when I looked
Messenger could only cope with basic subscriptions to named nodes (or #).
The place where I'm liking Messenger at the moment though is its
"dependency lite" nature, I guess that the vision is to be light,
portable and embeddable and I'm surprised that nobody has brought this
aspect up in this debate. Ultimately when all is said and done that's
probably the single most significant "compelling feature" of Messenger
vice qpid::messaging Messenger was ground-up intended for this use-case.
That's not to say that qpid::messaging couldn't fit in there (or be
modified to do so) but that wasn't (I don't believe) one of the intended
design goals.
I guess I'm slightly disappointed that the tone of this thread seems to
be that it's something of a competition, I personally don't think this
it should be and that each has a valid place. I think I'd prefer the
energy to be spent making both as good as they can be :-)
Regards,
Frase
On 21/05/14 15:48, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 05/21/2014 02:10 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
I think of qpid::messaging as being a "traditional" client api.
[...]
Messenger, as an alternative, provides (or at least promises to
provide) solutions to a lot of the issues a "traditional" API has
left to the application implementation. Things like connection
failover, message retries,
Automatic failover and message retry *is* supported in qpid::messaging
(it isn't yet in Messenger).
credit scheduling,
What is that exactly? Messenger::recv(N) essentially distributes N
credits across however many incoming links there are, right? Whereas
qpid::messaging allows capacity to be set per subscriber and maintains
the window of credits accordingly.
So is the key difference here that in one API the credit is controlled
per-subscription whereas in the other it is controlled in aggregate.
Where the number of receivers is larger than the number of messages
the application is prepared to accept, dealing with the credit in
aggregate and having it automatically (re)distributed as needed may
indeed be useful. Of course the same feature could easily be built as
a utility on top of something like qpid::messaging.
routing,
So by this we mean the fact that Messenger looks at the address 'to'
field of the message, applies some optional rules to that, and then
find or creates the link to send it over.
This could of course also be built on top of qpid::messaging (or
indeed JMS).
and even client-side store are provided by Messenger.
When you say 'are provided' you mean 'might be provided in the future'?
Such features would probably feel cumbersome
I don't think it is the 'features' that are cumbersome, it's the
restrictions.
to someone looking for a JMS-like API (and IMHO may be better off
with qpid::messaging), but for those folks who may not be bound to a
legacy application, Messenger offers some useful features.
I've heard this sentiment in different ways quite a lot. I.e.
qpid::messaging and JMS are 'legacy' approaches, are for people who
aren't free to choose etc, whereas Messenger represents the future,
the ideal if nothing holds you back etc.
I don't go along with that view personally; I see nothing that really
justifies it. It also seems to me to be quite counter to the notion
that the APIs 'complement' each other, at least in my understanding of
what that means[1].
I'm certainly not arguing that qpid::messaging is the ideal API
either, or that there is only room for one API. I'm keen to see if we
can improve the general situation and feel that some debate around the
different visions that exist within the community would be helpful in
enabling better collaboration on that goal.
--Gordon.
[1] complement, verb, /ˈkɒm.plɪ.ment/:
"to make something else seem better or more attractive
when combining with it"
(from http://dictionary.cambridge.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
