As an observer here and user of messaging stuff, all I can say is please don't force other languages to have to live with a JMS API varient. I agree its very limited and is a success as it's a common demoninator that was standardised - the standardisation is really it best asset, not the API per se.
I've always thought an AMQP API that maps accurately to the protocol and is mostly familiar across languages (in the core abstractions that map to the protocol, constants and so on) but uses those languages constructs effectively is the way to go. AMQP != JMS so why go there? ActiveMQ is the Apache JMS implementation is it not after all?Build a compliant JMS on the side in Java. Only Java. Prefereably layered on top of a more appropriate AMQP API. Then you can forget about lawyers. Sighs of relief all round surely? Hope you don't mind my $0.02 from the the leftfield. Colin. > -----Original Message----- > From: John O'Hara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 June 2007 17:13 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: NMS > > With JMS/NMS it's more likely to do with Copyright. > The question is "Is NMS derived from JMS", not about other > aspects of IP, but we need a lawyers comment. > > If the API looked substantially different from JMS there > probably wouldn't be an issue. > > Since JMS is not the greatest messaging API in the world, > imho, why do other languages have to suffer from it? > Not everyone using these other languages has seen JMS. > > Given AMQP (above rant aside) was engineered to be cross > platform/language - why not start with a fairly thin AMQP-centric API? > Then on top of it build JMS, WCF, etc... > > JMS by no means the only shape for a messaging API. > > Just my 2c > John > > > > > > > On 11/06/07, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I share the same sentiment. The 'tainting' assumptions > that are being > > made around the JMS spec need to get resolved ASAP for the sake of > > both the projects. > > > > On 6/11/07, Rupert Smith < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You can not seriously tell me that because you've read > the JMS spec > > > you > > may > > > not write a spec for a messaging protocol, without breaking the > > > rules of > > the > > > JMS spec. This discussion is bordering on the ridiculous. > > > > > > On 11/06/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6/11/07, John O'Hara < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > "..please consider that the same folks who developed > NMS helped > > develop > > > > the > > > > > AMQP specification so the same alleged 'taint' that is being > > > > > claimed > > > > > > against > > > > > NMS would also apply to AMQP." > > > > > > > > > > To clarify. > > > > > James is not the source of any of the content of the AMQP > > specification > > > > thru > > > > > v0-9, to the best of my knowledge. > > > > > > > > So I've just been through my AMQP spec emails; The > first version I > > > > was sent was 0.3a4 in August 2004 then I contributed to the > > > > specification up to around April 2005 when it had > reached around 0.81a. > > > > > > > > So what happened to the specification I worked on? Was > a new group > > > > formed excluding all the folks who were on the mailing > list I was > > > > on (including yourself John you were on the mailing > list with me) > > > > and were all versions of AMQP destroyed and a new cleanroom > > > > version created after 0.81a, ignoring all that previous work? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > James > > > > ------- > > > > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Hiram > > > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com > > >
