4 ms·
Tbh, unless your business app needed things like presence, file transfer, and federation, you're probably better sticking with something like mqtt, nats or rab
by kitd 5y ago
Tbh, unless your business app needed things like presence, file transfer, and federation, you're probably better sticking with something like mqtt, nats or rabbitmq.
- rakoo 5y agoI'd like to ask the question the other way around: is it better/simpler/easier to use MQTT, nats or RabbitMQ instead of XMPP when you don't need those ?
- mike_d 5y agoYou are basically asking: is it easier to have two servers just talk to each other, or ping each other back and forth on Slack.
- Gigachad 5y agoThe slack option certainly sounds a lot simpler. You don't have to worry about what happens if one server misses a message, what happens if you want to add more server, what happens if you want encryption, what happens if the server gets temporarily backlogged, etc. I wouldn't use slack exactly but a slack like service like XMPP/Matrix/Kafka? sound way simpler than having servers message each other directly.
- mike_d 5y ago> but a slack like service like XMPP/Matrix/Kafka? sound way simpler than having servers message each other directly This is called an Enterprise Service Bus and got its start in the early 2000s when you started to have the first batches of programmers entering the workforce who could write code to build business apps but didn't really "get" computers and networks. TIBCO made billions selling it and facilitating .NET apps talking to Java apps talking to random Oracle things.
- rakoo 5y agoIf I understood the initial question correctly, it was apps or potentially services that wanted to communicate together, meaning they would be clients talking to a central XMPP server. In that case, XMPP or MQTT or NATS or whatever: if XMPP works and is easy, why use something else ?
- rapnie 5y agoPresence a nice-to-have, but the others I'd need.