3 ms·

I think that one of the main problems with WAMP is that it's just too complex. The RFC is over 150 pages long... For that reason, implementing WAMP is not strai

I think that one of the main problems with WAMP is that it's just too complex. The RFC is over 150 pages long... For that reason, implementing WAMP is not straight forward. I think that parts of the WAMP spec are useful to read and I've found it to be a useful guideline for my project but I think that implementing fully WAMP-compatible clients and servers is not realistic at this stage... It's better to just roll your own protocol. Most implementations of real-time frameworks/libraries use custom protocols and many of them are more widely used than the WAMP protocol.

sametmax 8y ago
I agree on the complexity. They traded internal complexity for a simple and easy user experience. WAMP is kinda magic when you use it: languages with very different forms talk to each others reliably with almost no setup, no schema to define, to stuff to prealocate. And it's packed with features too (the wildcards and meta events are insanely powerful). The price of that is a really heavy spec. But it's also how the team approach problems. E.G: their Python code really, really looks like Java, with interface everywhere, and wrappers, and factories... If they designed their spec the same way, then it's not surprising. The german stereotype about engineering is not just a joke.