Hi Francesco,<div> Thanks. <br> Why is it a bad idea to expose AMQP to web clients? I see at least one company betting on it:
<a href="http://kaazing.com/products/amqp-edition">http://kaazing.com/products/amqp-edition</a> </div><div>-PC<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Francesco Mazzoli <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:francesco@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">francesco@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">At Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:03:28 -0700,<br>
<div class="im">Paddy Carman wrote:<br>
> Hi -<br>
> I'm reading about the rabbitmq-web-stomp plugin. It seem very cool - STOMP<br>
> over Websockets connecting to AMQP backend. My questions: <br>
> * can we do AMQP over websockets directly and <br>
> * If so, why do we need STOMP? <br>
> * Is there any particular advantage of using STOMP? <br>
<br>
</div>Stomp is a tremendously more simple protocol than AMQP, which is why it is easy<br>
to have a STOMP-over-SockJS. Moreover, exposing AMQP to the internet is not a<br>
good idea.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> * Are there performance implications in the STOM<>AMQP translation?<br>
<br>
</div>Not really. The STOMP plugin uses the direct exchange, and converting between<br>
message formats is straightforward.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Francesco * Often in error, never in doubt<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>