[rabbitmq-discuss] AMQP 0-9-1 released

[Michael Arnoldus]

Hi Alexis,

A bit late but I think this very good news. Now let's hope all  
implementers will implement 0.9.1 :-)

Enjoy,

Michael

On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:15 , Alexis Richardson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The RabbitMQ team is very pleased to announce that the AMQP 0-9-1
> specification was approved by the AMQP Working Group in a vote
> yesterday.
>
> The need for AMQP 0-9-1 arose from the AMQP community and AMQP
> customers.  The community wants interoperability - indeed this is a
> major goal of AMQP.  People frequently try to download a broker from
> one implementor, and use it with a client from another implementor.
> Even when both sets of code implement the same specification, this has
> not always worked 'out of the box'.
>
> Frequently asked questions have included "how to I do I .."
>
> * get OpenAMQ's C client working with RabbitMQ,
> * or get RabbitMQ's Java client to work with OpenAMQ
> * use QPid's M2.1 JMS-style Java client with RabbitMQ
>
> This has all been possible and people have done it, but in each case
> it has been a few hours of coding to get it working, without the
> assurance you want from a fully QAd or regression-tested and certified
> package.
>
> So I think we all want interop to work out of the box and many people
> have said they expect this too.  Interop would also remove cost from
> "business to business" integration projects.
>
> AMQP 0-9-1 was created to meet that need.  It is a simplified 'interop
> release' that starts from the 0-9 specification and then fixes interop
> bugs and removes a lot of unused material.  For reasons of backwards
> compatibility with certain existing deployments, the 0-9-1 spec will
> work with 0-9 wire frames.  This means that the community can expect
> to get what it demands: a set of brokers and clients that work
> together.
>
> The work to achieve this clean up was a collective effort and
> represents 18 months of 'lessons learnt in production' by all the
> major AMQP implementations in the 0-8/0-9 family.  Documents should
> appear on http://www.amqp.org imminently.  Thank-you to all those
> involved on behalf of the RabbitMQ team.
>
> I should also explain what AMQP 0-9-1 is *not*.  It does not
> interoperate with AMQP 0-10.  AMQP 0-10 introduces technology for
> transactional 'once and only once' delivery within the protocol.
> Similar features are planned for AMQP 1.0 which is currently under
> development by the Working Group.  So please see 0-9-1 as a
> stabilisation of earlier spec work, based on hard experience in
> production with the 0-8 and 0-9 protocols.  Current and future
> protocol work concerns the step up to the 1.0 business requirements as
> published on http://www.amqp.org.
>
> What does this mean for RabbitMQ users?
>
> Interop is good news for RabbitMQ because we think messaging should
> 'just work'.  RabbitMQ will implement AMQP 0-9-1 on the 1.x tree.
> AMQP 0-9-1 is absurdly similar to 0-8 and 0-9, which is one reason we
> found the 'interop delta' so frustrating.
>
> For RabbitMQ users this means a migration path not much more complex
> than (say) moving from RabbitMQ 1.3 to 1.4.  Existing deployments will
> continue to work but some methods - eg. access tickets - are now
> formally deprecated.  For implementors of clients, the cost of
> upgrading to 0-9-1 should not be more than a day's coding in most
> cases.  RabbitMQ will provide updated client codegen tools when an
> 0-9-1 broker is released.
>
> In terms of timing and details of the RabbitMQ 1.x broker roadmap, I
> refer you to the development team.  For discussions on this as well as
> packaging dependencies, and client release plans, we strongly urge the
> community to come forward with comments, questions and offers of
> assistance.
>
> We hope the RabbitMQ community places a high value on 0-9-1 interop -
> as high as we do as providers of the product.  I cannot speak here for
> the other implementations but we have good reason to believe that
> their respective communities will value 0-9-1 interop equally highly.
> But if you see gaps - please jump in and help with some code or
> requirements.  Or - even better - provide some test harnesses.  And if
> you see any errata then you can also list them here.
>
> What about 2009?
>
> With interest growing in AMQP around the community, and the Working
> Group being joined by Microsoft, we think AMQP is in good shape for
> the future.
>
> Members of the RabbitMQ community who wish to contribute to the
> development of the protocol as we move towards 1.0, should not be shy
> of speaking up on this list.  We aim to track this spec and invite
> implementation ideas for RabbitMQ 2.0.  We don't want to rush things -
> RabbitMQ's existing implementations set a high bar.  Stability at
> scale, and ease of use, are of the utmost importance.
>
> So - finally - I think this is a very good time to say a big thank-you
> to everyone who has made RabbitMQ successful so far.   Thank-you!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> alexis
>
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1912 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20081208/3659e95b/attachment.bin