4 ms·

Java EE has something very similar to 0MQ in the form of JMS. I'm just throwing out something random here, but I imagine the reason no one else really does thi

by azim 16y ago

Java EE has something very similar to 0MQ in the form of JMS. I'm just throwing out something random here, but I imagine the reason no one else really does this in standard libraries is because it's quite complicated and can easily lead to fragile protocols. Take AMQP, for example, it took something like 5 years to agree on their 1.0 standard.

riffraff 16y ago
and """ While iMatix was the original designer of AMQP and has invested hugely in that protocol, we believe it is fundamentally flawed, and unfixable. """
stcredzero 16y ago
Java EE has something very similar to 0MQ in the form of JMS. I've worked with JMS, and no. Maybe my implementation was flawed. (Weblogic) IIRC, you needed 5 different objects of 5 different classes just to do anything.
phintjens 16y ago
JMS does cover some of the same ground, all messaging does. But it's basically an API wrapper around two ancient technologies, a queue system and a topic system. I think it might have been IBM MQSeries (which became WebSphere MQ) and some other product but can't find the details. What JMS achieved was to somehow turn these two very different semantics into a single one, based around "destinations". That was very clever but also makes JMS weirdly complex to use because the queue (request-reply) pattern and the topic (publish-subscribe) pattern just don't work the same way. We designed AMQP originally by taking the JMS spec and reverse engineering that into a wire level protocol. Then around version 0.3 we threw out destinations and came up with a generic wiring model based on exchanges, bindings, queues. That was my summer holiday in 2005. AMQP is BTW still some way away from a 1.0 standard and mainly it's been five years trying to get reliability working in the center of the network. That always seemed destined to failure, as I explained in a presentation to the working group in 2006: http://www.zeromq.org/whitepapers:switch-or-broker http://www.zeromq.org/whitepapers:switch-or-broker. AMQP and JMS both focus on resources held in the center of the network. It's familiar to anyone using HTTP as their stack. Thin stupid clients talking to big smart servers. 0MQ turns the focus to smart clients working across a thin, stupid (but massive) network. Both approaches have their value. We (iMatix and the 0MQ community) tend to believe we can do a lot more, faster and more cheaply, using the distributed approach.

by azim 16y ago

riffraff 16y ago

and """ While iMatix was the original designer of AMQP and has invested hugely in that protocol, we believe it is fundamentally flawed, and unfixable. """

stcredzero 16y ago

Java EE has something very similar to 0MQ in the form of JMS. I've worked with JMS, and no. Maybe my implementation was flawed. (Weblogic) IIRC, you needed 5 different objects of 5 different classes just to do anything.

phintjens 16y ago

JMS does cover some of the same ground, all messaging does. But it's basically an API wrapper around two ancient technologies, a queue system and a topic system. I think it might have been IBM MQSeries (which became WebSphere MQ) and some other product but can't find the details. What JMS achieved was to somehow turn these two very different semantics into a single one, based around "destinations". That was very clever but also makes JMS weirdly complex to use because the queue (request-reply) pattern and the topic (publish-subscribe) pattern just don't work the same way. We designed AMQP originally by taking the JMS spec and reverse engineering that into a wire level protocol. Then around version 0.3 we threw out destinations and came up with a generic wiring model based on exchanges, bindings, queues. That was my summer holiday in 2005. AMQP is BTW still some way away from a 1.0 standard and mainly it's been five years trying to get reliability working in the center of the network. That always seemed destined to failure, as I explained in a presentation to the working group in 2006: http://www.zeromq.org/whitepapers:switch-or-broker http://www.zeromq.org/whitepapers:switch-or-broker. AMQP and JMS both focus on resources held in the center of the network. It's familiar to anyone using HTTP as their stack. Thin stupid clients talking to big smart servers. 0MQ turns the focus to smart clients working across a thin, stupid (but massive) network. Both approaches have their value. We (iMatix and the 0MQ community) tend to believe we can do a lot more, faster and more cheaply, using the distributed approach.