netzooid

Interesting tidbits from the Microsoft people going around on queued messaging. Clemens Vasters starts it off talking about how WS-RM != durable:

There is no rule saying: “the received message MUST be written do disk”. WS-ReliableMessaging is as reliable (and unreliable in case of very long-lasting network failures or an endpoint outright crashing) and plays the same role as TCP. The mapping is actually pretty straightforward like this: WS-Addressing = IP, WS-ReliableMessaging = TCP.

And Shy Cohen weighs in on whats happening with WCF and queued messaging:

Reliable sessions are implemented using the WS-ReliableMessaging protocol. This protocol is yet another misnamed WS-* protocol, as it actually only deals with the reliability of the transfer and says nothing about durability, delivery acknowledgments, TTL for a message, long running sessions where a particular message is lost forever, etc. Currently, there is no active work going on to develop an interoperable Queued Messaging specification, but I expect that we will get to it in the near future….

We do hear what folks are saying though, and we are actively working on a set of features that will allow Queued Messaging implementations to leverage WCF’s WS-ReliableMessaging implementation. With this feature set you’d be able to “bring your own durable store� and have an interoperable Queued Messaging channel that fits nicely and naturally into the WCF architecture.

Finally Dave Chappell discusses why there is no spec quite yet:

I have no first-hand knowledge, but it’s easy to imagine that IBM isn’t too keen on creating web services standards in this area. WebSphere MQ holds a commanding share of this market, and so it would be understandable if IBM wasn’t enthusiastic about creating another WS-* spec that commoditized queued messaging. Still, without interoperable queued messaging, web services-based SOAs will be limited in significant ways.

Mmm more design by committee. I hope it turns out to be as swell as WS-RM!
It’ll be interesting to see how popular something like this would become. I think most people are going to opt for the transport level reliability like JMS or something like it. With ActiveMQ working on both .NET and Java, I think SOAP over JMS makes a lot more sense in those situations.

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 26th, 2006 at 10:39 pm and is filed under Random.