8 ms·

WAMP - WebSocket Application Messaging Protocol

23 points by pooriaazimi 14y ago

davidarkemp2 14y ago
Please consider changing the name - it's already in common use for Windows Apache, MySql and PHP (similar to LAMP).
- bestest 14y ago
  I'm surprised someone who's working in a web environment hasn't already thought of that. Unless it was done intentionally.
- mkohlmyr 14y ago
  Indeed, very poor choice of name.
- AhtiK 14y ago
  According to the footer: "WAMP and the WAMP logo are trademarks of Tavendo GmbH." Possibly the registration is either pending or registered in a non-US country as the only live WAMP trademark registration I could find was a pasta sauce: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4004:dvjucv.3.3 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4004:dv... Regarding the name itself: WAMP is the same as the massively popular Windows LAMP stack. Unnecessary conflict. But maybe WSAMP could be a nice alternative. AMP postfix hinting "amplifier". The risk of using WS prefix is the relevance to WebService.
  - BerislavLopac 14y ago
    A name or logo doesn't have to be registered to be a trademark. Note that it doesn't say "registered trademarks". It's completely valid and legal. (IANAL)
    - oberstet 14y ago
      Yes, exactly. Currently, it is not registered, but claimed and in commercial use. Note that this is only done to protect the integrity of WAMP over time .. "if you fork it, thats cool, but don't call it WAMP". WAMP is an open protocol, free to anyone!
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  (Just to be perfectly clear: I'm not the creator, and it's not a 'Show HN' type of post - I just thought it was cool and wanted to share it. Your point is completely valid nevertheless. Actually what caught my eye in the first place was its name and it struck me as odd that they've chosen that name!)
- mootothemax 14y ago
  Please consider changing the name - it's already in common use for Windows Apache, MySql and PHP (similar to LAMP). I'm also a bit surprised that they didn't first type "wamp" into Google and see what came up. Given the number 1 result for me is wampserver.com, it seems a particularly unwise decision.
qatalo 14y ago
WsAMP would be a more appropriate, recognizable, brandable and less clashing name.
- BerislavLopac 14y ago
  I'd call it SwampMonster. ;-)
- borplk 14y ago
  Definitely agree. Just imagine having to search about them...
odiroot 14y ago
Why so many posts about the name? This is great -- especially with all these readymade implementations. Also multiple WebSocket protocol versions support is really important.
mogui 14y ago
i liked it besides the name. It's a nice try of standardization of home made solution on top of WS. the name though is bad, but it seems he has registered it :P
rdtsc 14y ago
Another interesting option is: http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2012/05/14/introducing-rabbitmq-web-stomp/ http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2012/05/14/introducing-rabbitmq... It is STOMP messaging to the web via RabbitMQ. It also has a fallback to long polling via (SockJS) if websockets are not available (say because of IE8).
rizwan 14y ago
Being WebSocket-based only has the unfortunate consequence of not working well on cellular networks, because some like Verizon will often blackhole WS connections. This means that if you are building a real time app that has any chance to be used on mobile, you'll always need a fallback.
- ithkuil 14y ago
  Ah, interesting. But what if the app communicates via https, how could verizon detect any inner protocol? Or does it happen only when using the ISP as http proxy?
- oberstet 14y ago
  While it MAY be true that WS is blocked by some mobile carriers (though I haven't seen it myself .. at least in Germany), providers will have more problems blocking WSS since it runs over TLS. Since WSS only starts after a TLS connection is established, identifying the traffic as WebSocket requires intercepting TLS using MITM proxy techniques. This in turn requires the ability to inject ad-hoc "fake" certificates into browsers .. which is possible if there is an appropriate CA cert for the proxy installed in the browser. This can and is be done within controlled envionments like corporate networks where you can force user browsers to incorporate such CA certs. I never have seen it on public networks. It would be a major security and privacy issue. My provider reading my online banking traffic? Yes, please! I sue them to hell and make some bucks;)
drivebyacct2 14y ago
This is similar to http://socket.io http://socket.io, right?
- oberstet 14y ago
  WAMP was specifically designed to do both RPC (think AJAX-on-steriods) plus PubSub within one protocol based on WebSocket. socket.io seems to be PubSub only, but transport neutral. WAMP currently is only defined for WebSocket transport, but was designed to work over any reliable, bidirectional, message oriented transport. A future version of WAMP may define new transports, and also new serialization formats (currently JSON only, but WebSocket also provides binary transparency, so there may be value in having a binary WAMP, i.e. based on Bencode).

23 points by pooriaazimi 14y ago

davidarkemp2 14y ago

Please consider changing the name - it's already in common use for Windows Apache, MySql and PHP (similar to LAMP).

bestest 14y ago
I'm surprised someone who's working in a web environment hasn't already thought of that. Unless it was done intentionally.
mkohlmyr 14y ago
Indeed, very poor choice of name.
AhtiK 14y ago
According to the footer: "WAMP and the WAMP logo are trademarks of Tavendo GmbH." Possibly the registration is either pending or registered in a non-US country as the only live WAMP trademark registration I could find was a pasta sauce: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4004:dvjucv.3.3 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4004:dv... Regarding the name itself: WAMP is the same as the massively popular Windows LAMP stack. Unnecessary conflict. But maybe WSAMP could be a nice alternative. AMP postfix hinting "amplifier". The risk of using WS prefix is the relevance to WebService.
- BerislavLopac 14y ago
  A name or logo doesn't have to be registered to be a trademark. Note that it doesn't say "registered trademarks". It's completely valid and legal. (IANAL)
  - oberstet 14y ago
    Yes, exactly. Currently, it is not registered, but claimed and in commercial use. Note that this is only done to protect the integrity of WAMP over time .. "if you fork it, thats cool, but don't call it WAMP". WAMP is an open protocol, free to anyone!
pooriaazimi 14y ago
(Just to be perfectly clear: I'm not the creator, and it's not a 'Show HN' type of post - I just thought it was cool and wanted to share it. Your point is completely valid nevertheless. Actually what caught my eye in the first place was its name and it struck me as odd that they've chosen that name!)
mootothemax 14y ago
Please consider changing the name - it's already in common use for Windows Apache, MySql and PHP (similar to LAMP). I'm also a bit surprised that they didn't first type "wamp" into Google and see what came up. Given the number 1 result for me is wampserver.com, it seems a particularly unwise decision.

qatalo 14y ago

WsAMP would be a more appropriate, recognizable, brandable and less clashing name.

BerislavLopac 14y ago
I'd call it SwampMonster. ;-)
borplk 14y ago
Definitely agree. Just imagine having to search about them...

odiroot 14y ago

Why so many posts about the name? This is great -- especially with all these readymade implementations. Also multiple WebSocket protocol versions support is really important.

mogui 14y ago

i liked it besides the name. It's a nice try of standardization of home made solution on top of WS. the name though is bad, but it seems he has registered it :P

rdtsc 14y ago

Another interesting option is: http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2012/05/14/introducing-rabbitmq-web-stomp/ http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2012/05/14/introducing-rabbitmq... It is STOMP messaging to the web via RabbitMQ. It also has a fallback to long polling via (SockJS) if websockets are not available (say because of IE8).

rizwan 14y ago

Being WebSocket-based only has the unfortunate consequence of not working well on cellular networks, because some like Verizon will often blackhole WS connections. This means that if you are building a real time app that has any chance to be used on mobile, you'll always need a fallback.

ithkuil 14y ago
Ah, interesting. But what if the app communicates via https, how could verizon detect any inner protocol? Or does it happen only when using the ISP as http proxy?
oberstet 14y ago
While it MAY be true that WS is blocked by some mobile carriers (though I haven't seen it myself .. at least in Germany), providers will have more problems blocking WSS since it runs over TLS. Since WSS only starts after a TLS connection is established, identifying the traffic as WebSocket requires intercepting TLS using MITM proxy techniques. This in turn requires the ability to inject ad-hoc "fake" certificates into browsers .. which is possible if there is an appropriate CA cert for the proxy installed in the browser. This can and is be done within controlled envionments like corporate networks where you can force user browsers to incorporate such CA certs. I never have seen it on public networks. It would be a major security and privacy issue. My provider reading my online banking traffic? Yes, please! I sue them to hell and make some bucks;)

drivebyacct2 14y ago

This is similar to http://socket.io http://socket.io, right?

oberstet 14y ago
WAMP was specifically designed to do both RPC (think AJAX-on-steriods) plus PubSub within one protocol based on WebSocket. socket.io seems to be PubSub only, but transport neutral. WAMP currently is only defined for WebSocket transport, but was designed to work over any reliable, bidirectional, message oriented transport. A future version of WAMP may define new transports, and also new serialization formats (currently JSON only, but WebSocket also provides binary transparency, so there may be value in having a binary WAMP, i.e. based on Bencode).