Talk:Advanced Message Queuing Protocol

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force.

Licensing Questions

I believe the current text regarding opinions on the provisions of the AMQP license are not being made by a lawyer. The intent of the AMQP License is to allow implementation and distribution, but not modification of the *specification* itself.

There is specific clarification about this by the AMQP WG itself: [1] Extract: "We encourage both commercial and open source implementations of AMQP, in software, hardware or embedded in other services and solutions. We encourage distribution of implementations in source or binary forms and we encourage the bundling and distribution of AMQP as part of operating systems and other infrastructure. The AMQP License enables this."

I believe that the "legal opinion" in the entry should be omitted as it is clearly the intent of the protocol authors that AMQP be broadly implemented and distributed. I propose that the legal opinion is removed. --Egalis (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACTIONED: Today I removed the licensing Controvery section as no one has objected to my notes above. --Egalis (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 26 June, 2009.[reply]

The AMQP model

I added a bit of text detailing the AMQP model. I'd like to put up a couple of points for discussion

Is the text readable for someone new to AMQP? Can it be simplified and/or clarified? Can details such as entity properties be moved to somewhere later in the text?
Is always the correct terminology used? I deliberately omitted things like sessions and tracks however.
Is everything correct?
The spec (0.10) states the queue and exchange names have the same type but speak of utf-8 only in the context of queue names. Are both naming schemas the same?

There are also critical omissions / things to do:

Failures modes / unroutable messages / accept and acquire modes / ACK. This also leads to the omission of the alternate-exchange property.
There is no differentiation between version 0.8, 0.9 and 0.10 of the spec.
Transactions.
Default exchanges and changed semantics (implicit bindings).
The text is pretty much absent of links and formatting.
More examples are needed.

The source for my description is the version 0.10 of the official specification.

Yawn09 (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Why have my link to 0MQ implementation of AMQP been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.41.158 (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated your edits regarding ZeroMq. It is an implementation of AMQP and thus belongs here. Ade oshineye (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Are the references adequate since links to peer reviewed articles published by the ACM and the IEEE were added?

Also originally missing was a link to the full protocol specification text, now added.

How much detail about the nuts and bolts of AMQP should be described on the Wikipedia page in order to increase the quality of the submission?

62.3.65.237 (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the ACM Queue nor the the IEEE Internet Computing article come anywhere close to meeting the academic standards for peer review.

24.95.36.8 (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Is academic peer review necessary? I thought Wikipedia was all about the NPOV concerning subjects meriting inclusion. AMQP is an open protocol, with multiple implementations and references in the public domain. Is any of this in dispute? Just trying to help.. Monadic (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the ACM article was indeed peer reviewed by industry experts (the names were not made known to me, but I did see their commentry). As for the IEEE article, Mr Vinoski is regarded by many as distinguished in the field of middleware, especially by his work on CORBA (see "Advanced CORBA Programming with C++ (Addison-Wesley Professional Computing Series) by Michi Henning and Steve Vinoski" and "Enterprise Security With Ejb and Corba" by Bret Hartman, Donald J. Flinn, Konstantin Beznosov, and Steve Vinoski for just two examples).--Egalis (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is correct to call AMQP an "open standard application layer", until it has been submitted to and approved by a standards body. Currently AFAIK it is not approved by any such body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.147.7 (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Financial Motivation

Some background in to the corporate financial reasons for creating yet another interoperability specification in a sea of such specifications would benefit the article considerably. Fredric Rice (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]