On 11/02/2011 09:44 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote: > Now when I've first seen AMQP I've said: "finally a protocol which > is both simple, flexible and implementable"
Have you seen AMQP/1.0? > So from what I've seen on OpenMAMA page, they go back to an API > based standard, thus allowing API "extensions" to cripple any window > of portability... Why??? (It's just like instead of having HTTP, IETF > would have defined an API and made it "pluggable"...) It's not like MAMA is a new ground-breaking technology meant to replace the existing messaging solutions. First, it've been around for some time already. Second, it's a niche solution to abstract different messaging products in the context of stock trading industry. Obviously, with existing proprietary software to deal with, it has to define API rather than a protocol. > P.P.S.: BTW, ZeroMQ can also be criticized as being API based -- > as there is limited documentation about the protocol -- but > fortunately it's quite easy to implement your own "sockets". (Or at > least this is what I think after reading the related "unprotocol".) There's an initiative to standardise a protocol for distributed messaging, but it'll take some time to make it ready: http://groups.google.com/group/sp-discuss-group Martin _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
