OpenWire vs. STOMP

["praveen.sharma" <pr...@ll.mit.edu>]

What are the pros and cons of OPenWire and STOMP?  The ones I know are that
the former uses binary encoding while the latter utilize text-based
encoding.  Also, both of them operate on more or less similar underling
protocols.

I have also gone through all the documentation I could find on STOMP.  But,
I have not yet figured out why will some one go for STOMP when OPenWire is
so efficient?  Why would someone like the textual transparency at the
wire-level?

--Praveen
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/OpenWire-vs.-STOMP-tp27535610p27535610.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: OpenWire vs. STOMP

[Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>]

Hi,

the point of Stomp protocol is to be easy to implement on the client side,
so that it can be used from practically any environment (scripting languages
and such). If you're using Java, .NET or any other similar environment,
OpenWire should be your choice.

Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb

Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net


On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 7:13 PM, praveen.sharma
<pr...@ll.mit.edu>wrote:

>
> What are the pros and cons of OPenWire and STOMP?  The ones I know are that
> the former uses binary encoding while the latter utilize text-based
> encoding.  Also, both of them operate on more or less similar underling
> protocols.
>
> I have also gone through all the documentation I could find on STOMP.  But,
> I have not yet figured out why will some one go for STOMP when OPenWire is
> so efficient?  Why would someone like the textual transparency at the
> wire-level?
>
> --Praveen
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/OpenWire-vs.-STOMP-tp27535610p27535610.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>