Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page 1 of 212next »
pieterhpieterh 30 Apr 2011 15:49
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » AMQP Lulz

Angus, I'm happy that it's been working out for INETCO. You perhaps came at a time when the religious wars were over. You will notice that few of the original members of the WG survived. I've been mild in my criticisms of the AMQP process, compared to what participants have said privately.

However, the point isn't really how well the AMQP/1.0 process is going. There are three points here. One, the delay between AMQP's original launch and a usable 1.0. Two, the mass of investment in 0.9.1 that has accumulated over these years. Three, the total incompatibility of 1.0 with 0.9.1.

I've a lot of appreciation for AMQP, which is why iMatix spent such an inordinate effort in the working group (we're a tiny firm, it was 1-2 people full-time for years). But the emergent conflict between 1.0 and 0.9.1 is going to be traumatic. With the best will in the world, asking people to discard 5 years of investment is going to cause an intense negative response. There is no way around this, and I'm impressed with the WG's failure to recognize this and plan for it.

(In fact the only possible plan would have been to move AMQP slowly from A to B, with full compatibility along the way.)

The saddest part is that over the years as I've tried to explain this to folk like JOH the response was "no public discussion of anything that might paint AMQP in a bad light" and then "you're a bad loser, go away and let the experts handle it".

by pieterhpieterh, 30 Apr 2011 15:49
Angus Telfer (guest) 21 Apr 2011 16:10
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » AMQP Lulz

Interesting blog . but can't say I agree. I work for INETCO, a small company that has been actively involved with the AMQP 1.0 working group for a bit over a year now. We have implemented the AMQP 1.0 draft, have successfully participated in all of the interconnectivity testing, and will be using it in future product releases. From this experience, I can state: (a) AMQP is very doable by a small company (we have had one person assigned to it very part time), (b) it is indeed very comprehensive (something we appreciate as we have no plan to use different middleware messaging protocols for slightly different purposes), (c) it is a very active group (getting larger since we joined) with a very healthy mix of small/large companies and vendors/customers, (d) we have arguments all the time (if we didn't, it would hardly be a standards group), and (e) we're good at coming to a consensus when the time comes for it.

by Angus Telfer (guest), 21 Apr 2011 16:10
pieterhpieterh 20 Apr 2011 22:48
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » AMQP Lulz

Well, "paying attention" is over-stating it. People keep asking me why iMatix "walked away" as you kindly put it, instead of trying to fix things. This blog post is part of the answer.

Your "backwards compatibility" document mostly seems to fudge the issue. Some stuff may work, most stuff won't. Nice document stylesheet though. Seems familiar. Ah, yes, it's based on iMatix's technical whitepaper stylesheet except you made it all ugly. Sweet!

Exposing the wire protocol in APIs? Shockingly, other protocols do this too. My web scripts say GET, and PUT. Seems like a terrible idea, until you realize HTTP actually has won, and HTTP-based messaging is likely to win, too. It really is just a matter of time. Have you mapped the AMQP/1.0 semantics to HTTP? Recall, some of us did that for AMQP/0.9.1, and asked the working group for review, in 2008. Oh, right, it was rejected like all our suggestions.

Make protocols humans can read, and humans will actually enjoy using them.

I'm certain you have talented people working for you and with you, John. But talent aimed at wasteful enterprises is just wasted talent. That includes your own time. A kind notice, we're all mortal, and to waste our days here is sad, and regretful.

Your opinion of 0MQ would always be welcome. If after several years of heavy engagement with the 0MQ community, you find your 0MQ contributions are discarded, your suggestions rejected without exception, and your contributions thrown by the wayside, feel free to write long critiques of the 0MQ process too.

I've earned the right to speak on the AMQP process, and will continue to use that right. When AMQP/1.0 is published, I will review it in detail.

Thanks for the comment.

by pieterhpieterh, 20 Apr 2011 22:48
John O'Hara (guest) 20 Apr 2011 22:04
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » AMQP Lulz

Hi Pieter

If we weren't doing something right, you would not pay so much attention to group you walked away from 2 years ago!

Many of your assertions are incorrect or misinformed:

1: Backwards compatibility of 1.0 with 0-91 is addressed here: on AMQP.ORG; we've also verified how to take a 0-91 API and retrofit it onto 1.0
2: AMQP always said no backwards compatibility prior to 1.0, unsurprisingly. I remember telling you it was a mistake to expose the wire protocol to the higher level API's
3: The 3rd AMQP connectathon has just happened in Boston; 7 people, 5 companies and 5 implementations of 1.0 working together in a room

I'm extremely proud of the many talented people working on AMQP.

I wish you good fortune in your endeavors; but please do not resort to denigrating ours.

Kind regards

PS. If you would like me to write up an evaluation of 0MQ to go alongside your evaluation of AMQP, just ask…

by John O'Hara (guest), 20 Apr 2011 22:04
pieterhpieterh 17 May 2009 22:39
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Communications

Glad you liked it. Mobile email was popular in Japan by 1999. We depended on this for some apps. It did not take off in Europe until a couple of years ago mainly because the telcos feared losing their SMS profits.

by pieterhpieterh, 17 May 2009 22:39
GabrysGabrys 17 May 2009 22:16
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Communications

This is a text about things we all feel inside us, but have never managed to realize. Very valuable for me, thank you for sharing!

PS: I never knew, there was something like mobile mail (Mtext in tables)

Piotr Gabryjeluk
visit my blog

Nice by GabrysGabrys, 17 May 2009 22:16

I think AMQP WG, and V1 already address Pieter's concerns.

AMQP is my vision; a drive to create a useful, credible, dominant standard for "business messaging" (thanks to Alexis Richardson for inventing that term, which sounds so much better than "MOM").

To solve the problem of what AMQP should be, the big users of this stuff (including me) got together and defined what success should look like.

Want to know what "enterprise" customers need from a full MOM offering? Check it out:

AMQP 1.0 is the first revision of the protocol to tick all the boxes; and it learned from the work that went before.

We have a diverse group of companies working together both users and suppliers of technology, and strong competitors of all types sitting around the table. Where we've got to, and the fact that this group of companies has met every week for nearly 3 years, speaks volumes.

  • Make small pieces: Check.

The 1.0 PR is published as one document to reduce the opportunity for confusion and fragmentation in a new spec, but it is layered with each layer in its own independent chapter. We are working hard to clear up the layering down at the lowest level, but there are people from at least 3 organisations working on that.

  • Delegate the design work: Check!

That's why we have SIG's in AMQP Working Group.
But working with others is slower and harder than working alone - it's always so bothersome and time-consuming to argue points of view. In business terms, time is money, and this process is just too expensive for some people to stick at. Which is unfortunate. But its not for want of openness or a call to action.
I know that the combination of ideas argued honestly is in the end better. 1.0 proves that.

  • Leverage the community: Check!

But whose community? There is an AMQP community, albeit a bit small. There is the Rabbit Community, the Apache Community, the OpenAMQ community. But most people like the pleasure and freedom of building their own codes than the tough exercise of working with (potential) competitors. There's also which has a smaller community than itself. But we agreed to help fix that up and clarify it.

  • Leverage competition: Check!

I think we've got that covered in AMQP Working Group.
One day in San Diego when we had in one room iMatix, Red Hat, Microsoft, 29 West, Tervela and Solace talking technology was quite something. Oh, and JPM and DBS, we know our tech too.
The messaging market cannot evolve without a standard to rally around, that the users care about.

  • Leverage the market: Check!

Let's see who shifts the most brokers…. let the market decide.

  • Use natural syntax: This is non-statement. XML, EBNF, anyone?
  • Use natural semantics: Another non-statement.

Good design demands simplicity, and that simplicity is notoriously hard to find. AMQP 1.0 is conceptually much simpler than previous versions, given that Exchanges have been factored into their essence, and disappeared.

  • Push blame to the edges: Sort of - depends on your point of view.

This depends on how you think of the network.
AMQP introduces the concept of trusted intermediaries into the network, and its very useful.
The whole idea is to factor that difficult stuff out of applications. It can't disappear completely, but applications get a whole lot simpler in this model. Some of the largest applications in the world are written to this model.
The trust contract is that it won't accept something unless it can (publisher flow control) and it will safe keep it until the client comes to collect.

  • Deconstruct the broker: Check!

AMQP is about client->broker communication. AMQP says nothing about how the brokers network presence is represented. For example, Red Hat's MRG has a clustered multi-node broker - a bit like Oracle RAC. Every node is the same broker. Rabbit leverages Erlang clustering.
I hope that one day, like multicast, the entire network will be AMQP aware.
All of todays most successful, scalable networks are intermediated. That's what a modern Ethernet switch/router is.
AMQP is a higher value intermediation, and a different addressing scheme which is more locationally and temporally robust for the convenience of end users.

Pieter has made a significant contribution to the evolution of AMQP up 'til v0-91.
And so have Robert Godfrey, Rafi Schloming, Gordon Sim, and Tony Garnock-Jones from a technical viewpoint, and Carl Trieloff and Alexis Richardson from a market awareness viewpoint.
And many others.

And of course then there me's. I just started with this idea to standardise MOM in 2003….

I think AMQP 1.0 already adheres to these principles... by John O'Hara (guest), 07 May 2009 23:47
pieterhpieterh 04 May 2009 14:08
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » 10 Principles for AMQP

I agree. Ages ago we proposed a simple XML-based management API that was developed by iMatix and JPMorganChase for management and control in 2005. The other vendors did not accept it, so we have no standard for management. It'd be fine if everyone documented and promoted their APIs so others could interoperate but that does not happen.

Since vendor rivalry seems inevitable, the architecture needs to embrace that: allow multiple management API options, if people insist on inventing their own, but all published fairly. When one gains dominance, clients can then push other vendors to conform, and we get a standard.

This is the collaborative/competitive model we built for but it remains to be seen whether this can work, or whether iMatix is an aberration in systematically documenting their interfaces and extensions so that others can use them.

by pieterhpieterh, 04 May 2009 14:08

I think this is a great list of items.

However, the best architecture/protocol/software is hard to use if the management and control of it is not an integral part. (Note: integral does NOT mean "has to be there at all times"; it means there are hooks allowing its introduction at any point and granularity.)

I am not sure if this really warrants a separate bullet, but, I saw no particular place in your list to put it, so made another bullet!

Cheers, John

John Apps +1 719 534 3910 It looks very plain and almost ugly from the outside, just another building, really. However, once you get inside, it is quite lovely - and different!

alexis (guest) 19 Apr 2009 22:48
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Red Hat Claims AMQP


You repudiate yourself.

Pieter quotes you as saying "Red Hat teamed up with one of its customers, JP Morgan Chase (JPMC), to create an open protocol standard around messaging, AMQP." NOTE - "to create an open protocol" .. not a working group.

Adrian says "I can confirm everything that Pieter says about where and how AMQP originated. iMatix was at the heart of the project from the start, and RH wasn't."

As a corollary to the comments from Pieter and Adrian, I say, to you Briand: Until you speak the truth you will not win respect. When you stop publishing documents and blog posts which *everyone* (including the senior dudes at JPMorgan) describes as Redhat claiming they invented AMQP, then you'll be on slightly more solid ground.

At this stage, you could profit from making a short, clear, statement: "Redhat did not *create* AMQP" on your blog. You could also explain that the working group was created by more than two companies, not just Redhat and JPMorgan. It's up to you. JPMorgan created a community - more power to them - we are all just *parts* of that community.


equivocation by alexis (guest), 19 Apr 2009 22:48

Sorry for the late response as I've just returned from vacation. Anyway, I think I'm clear that Red Hat didn't invent AMQP and that work on AMQP occurred well before Red Hat's involvement. The position paper which I was requested to submit to the NSF was on how can you create a model for sustainable software development models around open source software. I point to the AMQP working group and the AMQP standard—for which Red Hat was certainly at the start and pivotal in helping create-as a model for how that happens. Note that I say "Red Hat and JPMC created a legal contract to form the AMQP working group"-not AMQP itself. The working group and open process we have that includes vendors and customers and to which you contribute is what is important for "models of how to build sustainable cyberinfrastructure software."

Note that the other example I give around development models (and which I highlight in my blog intro) is around Condor, which existed for 20 years before Red Hat's involvement. In neither case do I claim that Red Hat invented the technology. But, Red Hat did have an important role in shaping the model for broader participation and adoption around these initiatives, and that's what I highlight.

iMatix certainly deserves credit for its early work on the AMQP software and as being a founding member of the working group as well. But, please take my writing in context—Red Hat does not claim to have invented AMQP and never will. That would be counter-productive to our desire to have a true interoperability standard.

I don't claim that Red Hat invented AMQP by Bryan Che (guest), 14 Apr 2009 16:17
pieterhpieterh 30 Mar 2009 17:31
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Red Hat Claims AMQP

From long before the day in August 2004 when called me and asked, "Pieter, how would you like to help me make a new open protocol for messaging?", AMQP was John's goal. This was a protocol he sought deliberately, carefully, and at a non-trivial risk and cost to JPMorganChase (though the risks were in hindsight well controlled). I like to think iMatix wrote the words of what went out the door in 2006, but in fact the original protocol emerged from intense, deliberate collaboration between the engineers in JPMC, and iMatix, and others who added their piece. It is of great credit to John, and his management in JPMorganChase, that they took the long vision, and understood the importance of getting this right. AMQP was no accident, and I'm proud to have been there from the early days of the project.

Today, AMQP is in the hands of a diverse, competent workgroup of brilliant people. iMatix bet its business on AMQP, from 2004 onwards, and we're totally, utterly committed to seeing it become the standard for enterprise middleware.

by pieterhpieterh, 30 Mar 2009 17:31
iMatix was the first partner in AMQP
John O'Hara (guest) 30 Mar 2009 12:03
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Red Hat Claims AMQP

I agree with Adrian.

Pieter was the first partner in AMQP, before it went public. If you read about his other technical work on iMatix, you can see why. He has a passion for technology, and a great way with words.

That's what we needed when we worked together to create AMQP - not just code, but a description which could be used by others. RabbitMQ proved that when they wrote their broker from the protocol specification alone.

It was also JPM's intent from the beginning to make AMQP open, to work with many partners and to pour in decades of their own real-world messaging experience.

I find it distasteful that some are trying to re-write the history of AMQP for their own purposes.

AMQP is the product of many good people working hard in many companies; Pieter was among the first.

iMatix was the first partner in AMQP by John O'Hara (guest), 30 Mar 2009 12:03

I really appreciate the comments.

Thanks by pieterhpieterh, 27 Mar 2009 08:00
He's black
Martino (guest) 27 Mar 2009 05:45
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Obama and the End of Politics

"Historic presidency" means "for once in history, people will stop complaining about the president's skin color being white". Whenever I heard someone use the term, they meant his skin color. They just were too nice to say it bluntly. By nice I mean they felt it was too taboo to mention his skin color, which shows how much further we have yet to go.

He's black by Martino (guest), 27 Mar 2009 05:45

Having been very close to this project since its inception, I can confirm everything that Pieter says about where and how AMQP originated. iMatix was at the heart of the project from the start, and RH wasn't.

And it's coming from a random internet person, so is of marginal value, but my condolences on the loss of your child. Having experienced similar, I can appreciate how much this project cost you and your wife, and why Red Hat's usurping of it would rankle somewhat.

Terry Jones (guest) 26 Mar 2009 23:25
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Red Hat Claims AMQP

OK, I can see a date if I look at your blog's main page, but it does not appear in the template for the individual article. So people coming here directly don't see a date.

Ah... by Terry Jones (guest), 26 Mar 2009 23:25
Terry Jones (guest) 26 Mar 2009 23:23
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Red Hat Claims AMQP

Hi Pieter

It would be very helpful if your blog template included the date! You point to a Brian Che article that's (now) 5 months old. Alexis just tweeted the URL of this article, but I have no way of knowing when you wrote this. I find all the above outrageous - actually this kind of behavior makes me furious - but maybe this is an issue that's already old news.

Date? by Terry Jones (guest), 26 Mar 2009 23:23
page 1 of 212next »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License