You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@qpid.apache.org by Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> on 2018/03/14 08:40:37 UTC
Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message
exchange?
Hi everybody,
We are working with Qpid to set up interoperability between 2 systems, one in Java, the other in C ++.
On the C ++ side, we use Qpid Proton 0.17.0 (not the last update due to system constraints) to use the AMQP 1.0 standard.
In Java, we started on Qpid JMS 0.30.0 for the simplicity of JMS and compatibility with 1.0 of AMQP.
In the nominal case, we use a Broker, but we also need point-to-point access to transfer information from one system to another such as the broker's address and the queues on which we can exchange.
However, connection and exchange with the broker is simple to configure, but the point to point in JMS seems compromised (or so we have not yet find the right documentation).
We are considering the use of Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 but again, we do not find much example of implementation ...
What is the best way to use both communication broker and point-to-point?
Anybody can provide us a quick sample of Proton-J usage with and without broker? or a JMS sample to point-to-point usage?
Thanks a lot by advance,
Best regards,
Cyril
[sigma]Cyril MICOUD
Software Development Engineer
Office : +33 (0)4 76 33 59 88
email: cmicoud@vitechnology.com<ma...@vitechnology.com>
Skype: cyril.micoud_vitech
[cid:image003.png@01D38FBA.734B9AA0]
www.vitechnology.com<http://www.vitechnology.com/>
Vi TECHNOLOGY - Rue Rochepleine - 38120 SAINT EGREVE - FRANCE
Follow us on [Logo-2C-14px.png] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/86291?trk=tyah&trkInfo=clickedVertical%3Acompany%2Cidx%3A1-2-2%2CtarId%3A1427120606152%2Ctas%3Avi+technology> , [g+16.png] <https://plus.google.com/112194535954742810807/posts?hl=fr> and [cid:image006.png@01D06C83.E72806A0] <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCimQHKdP-ew-Z_12r2xxUSA>
This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorized use or dissemination is prohibited. E-mails are susceptible to alteration. VIT shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified
Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
Hi Cyril,
no Qpid Broker-J does not support QMF. Qpid Broker-J does support
management over AMQP using the draft AMQP Management specification, whereby
you send messages to a node "$management" to perform management
operations. Since the AMQP spec is in draft this is not yet documented as
the mechanism is likely to change as the AMQP technical committee refines
the draft.
-- Rob
On 15 March 2018 at 14:22, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> wrote:
> Is it QMF available/compatible with Qpid Broker-J 7.0.x and Qpid JMS
> 0.30.0 ? If yes, how to unable it?
>
> Cyril
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com>
> Envoyé : jeudi 15 mars 2018 10:34
> À : users@qpid.apache.org
> Objet : RE: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point
> message exchange?
>
> Hi Robbie,
>
> Thanks for your answer, I agree with you on the "dynamicQueues/" usage...
>
> But about the VirtualHost/Exchange/Queue management, what is the best way
> with Qpid Broker-J 7.0.x? REST api or JMS message or any other solution?
>
> Cyril
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars
> 2018 18:55 À : users@qpid.apache.org Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid
> Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
>
> If you are 'reloading' an InitialContext to add new JNDI config, then
> depending on how you do that exactly I'd guess your application is coupled
> to either the syntax of the properties it uses or maybe just the
> implementation class. In either case, you could as well use
> session.createQueue(<name>) etc to create the destination objects instead,
> its no more provider-specific behaviour than the former.
>
> The context can actually also create Queue/Topic objects without
> predefined config using the prefixes "dynamicQueues/" or "dynamicTopics/"
> on the lookup, e.g looking up "dynamicQueues/myQueue"
> will give you a Queue destination object for "myQueue".
>
> Robbie
>
> On 14 March 2018 at 17:29, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> wrote:
> > We use Qpid Broker-J 7.0.x...
> >
> > We have build a REST service based on Retrofit but it is very coupling
> with POJO structure (we use Custom POJO instead of Map<String, Object>
> return by REST api due to the simplicity to understand which object we
> manipulate).
> > After see management via JMS message, I think to me it is pobably the
> best way to manage Broker configuration...
> >
> > But, for the moment, I am not able to use a queue or topic if it is not
> already present in JDNI properties (InitialContext).
> > After each REST creation, I must reload the InitialContext with the new
> queue...
> >
> > Perhaps, vertx-proton was better in that case...
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Cyril
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars
> > 2018 17:19 À : users@qpid.apache.org Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or
> > Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
> >
> > On 14 March 2018 at 17:13, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Gordon and Robbie for your answers.
> >>
> >> I have found the vertx-proton just few second before your response...
> >> it is very simple and I think we are going to use it to provide a
> >> light and simple server on our "client" java side.
> >>
> >> About JMS, I have seen a link (but where?) to manage VirtualHost,
> >> Exchange and Queue directly via message, it is always possible with
> >> Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or our only way is the REST api?
> >>
> >>
> > Which broker are you using? Unfortunately there is not yet a
> standardised way to manage different brokers.
> >
> > -- Rob
> >
> >
> >> Thanks again a ot by advance,
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Cyril
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>
> >> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 14:20
> >> À : users@qpid.apache.org
> >> Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point
> >> message exchange?
> >>
> >> On 14/03/18 12:19, Cyril Micoud wrote:
> >> > how each system knew the dispatch router?
> >>
> >> They just need a host and port; that would be the same even if one
> >> was directly connecting to the other.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For
> >> additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For
> > additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
> B KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCB
> [ X ܚX K K[XZ[
> \ \ ][ X ܚX P \ Y
> \ X K ܙ B ܈ Y ] [ۘ[ [X[ K[XZ[
> \ \ Z [ \ Y
> \ X K ܙ B B
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
RE: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message
exchange?
Posted by Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com>.
Is it QMF available/compatible with Qpid Broker-J 7.0.x and Qpid JMS 0.30.0 ? If yes, how to unable it?
Cyril
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com>
Envoyé : jeudi 15 mars 2018 10:34
À : users@qpid.apache.org
Objet : RE: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
Hi Robbie,
Thanks for your answer, I agree with you on the "dynamicQueues/" usage...
But about the VirtualHost/Exchange/Queue management, what is the best way with Qpid Broker-J 7.0.x? REST api or JMS message or any other solution?
Cyril
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 18:55 À : users@qpid.apache.org Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
If you are 'reloading' an InitialContext to add new JNDI config, then depending on how you do that exactly I'd guess your application is coupled to either the syntax of the properties it uses or maybe just the implementation class. In either case, you could as well use
session.createQueue(<name>) etc to create the destination objects instead, its no more provider-specific behaviour than the former.
The context can actually also create Queue/Topic objects without predefined config using the prefixes "dynamicQueues/" or "dynamicTopics/" on the lookup, e.g looking up "dynamicQueues/myQueue"
will give you a Queue destination object for "myQueue".
Robbie
On 14 March 2018 at 17:29, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> wrote:
> We use Qpid Broker-J 7.0.x...
>
> We have build a REST service based on Retrofit but it is very coupling with POJO structure (we use Custom POJO instead of Map<String, Object> return by REST api due to the simplicity to understand which object we manipulate).
> After see management via JMS message, I think to me it is pobably the best way to manage Broker configuration...
>
> But, for the moment, I am not able to use a queue or topic if it is not already present in JDNI properties (InitialContext).
> After each REST creation, I must reload the InitialContext with the new queue...
>
> Perhaps, vertx-proton was better in that case...
>
> Best regards
>
> Cyril
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars
> 2018 17:19 À : users@qpid.apache.org Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or
> Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
>
> On 14 March 2018 at 17:13, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Gordon and Robbie for your answers.
>>
>> I have found the vertx-proton just few second before your response...
>> it is very simple and I think we are going to use it to provide a
>> light and simple server on our "client" java side.
>>
>> About JMS, I have seen a link (but where?) to manage VirtualHost,
>> Exchange and Queue directly via message, it is always possible with
>> Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or our only way is the REST api?
>>
>>
> Which broker are you using? Unfortunately there is not yet a standardised way to manage different brokers.
>
> -- Rob
>
>
>> Thanks again a ot by advance,
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Cyril
>>
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>
>> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 14:20
>> À : users@qpid.apache.org
>> Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point
>> message exchange?
>>
>> On 14/03/18 12:19, Cyril Micoud wrote:
>> > how each system knew the dispatch router?
>>
>> They just need a host and port; that would be the same even if one
>> was directly connecting to the other.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For
>> additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
B KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCB [ X ܚX KK[XZ[
\ \ ][ X ܚX P \Y
\X K ܙ B ܈Y][ۘ[ [X[ K[XZ[
\ \ Z[ \Y
\X K ܙ B B
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
RE: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message
exchange?
Posted by Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com>.
Hi Robbie,
Thanks for your answer, I agree with you on the "dynamicQueues/" usage...
But about the VirtualHost/Exchange/Queue management, what is the best way with Qpid Broker-J 7.0.x? REST api or JMS message or any other solution?
Cyril
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 18:55
À : users@qpid.apache.org
Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
If you are 'reloading' an InitialContext to add new JNDI config, then depending on how you do that exactly I'd guess your application is coupled to either the syntax of the properties it uses or maybe just the implementation class. In either case, you could as well use
session.createQueue(<name>) etc to create the destination objects instead, its no more provider-specific behaviour than the former.
The context can actually also create Queue/Topic objects without predefined config using the prefixes "dynamicQueues/" or "dynamicTopics/" on the lookup, e.g looking up "dynamicQueues/myQueue"
will give you a Queue destination object for "myQueue".
Robbie
On 14 March 2018 at 17:29, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> wrote:
> We use Qpid Broker-J 7.0.x...
>
> We have build a REST service based on Retrofit but it is very coupling with POJO structure (we use Custom POJO instead of Map<String, Object> return by REST api due to the simplicity to understand which object we manipulate).
> After see management via JMS message, I think to me it is pobably the best way to manage Broker configuration...
>
> But, for the moment, I am not able to use a queue or topic if it is not already present in JDNI properties (InitialContext).
> After each REST creation, I must reload the InitialContext with the new queue...
>
> Perhaps, vertx-proton was better in that case...
>
> Best regards
>
> Cyril
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars
> 2018 17:19 À : users@qpid.apache.org Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or
> Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
>
> On 14 March 2018 at 17:13, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Gordon and Robbie for your answers.
>>
>> I have found the vertx-proton just few second before your response...
>> it is very simple and I think we are going to use it to provide a
>> light and simple server on our "client" java side.
>>
>> About JMS, I have seen a link (but where?) to manage VirtualHost,
>> Exchange and Queue directly via message, it is always possible with
>> Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or our only way is the REST api?
>>
>>
> Which broker are you using? Unfortunately there is not yet a standardised way to manage different brokers.
>
> -- Rob
>
>
>> Thanks again a ot by advance,
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Cyril
>>
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>
>> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 14:20
>> À : users@qpid.apache.org
>> Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point
>> message exchange?
>>
>> On 14/03/18 12:19, Cyril Micoud wrote:
>> > how each system knew the dispatch router?
>>
>> They just need a host and port; that would be the same even if one
>> was directly connecting to the other.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For
>> additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
If you are 'reloading' an InitialContext to add new JNDI config, then
depending on how you do that exactly I'd guess your application is
coupled to either the syntax of the properties it uses or maybe just
the implementation class. In either case, you could as well use
session.createQueue(<name>) etc to create the destination objects
instead, its no more provider-specific behaviour than the former.
The context can actually also create Queue/Topic objects without
predefined config using the prefixes "dynamicQueues/" or
"dynamicTopics/" on the lookup, e.g looking up "dynamicQueues/myQueue"
will give you a Queue destination object for "myQueue".
Robbie
On 14 March 2018 at 17:29, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> wrote:
> We use Qpid Broker-J 7.0.x...
>
> We have build a REST service based on Retrofit but it is very coupling with POJO structure (we use Custom POJO instead of Map<String, Object> return by REST api due to the simplicity to understand which object we manipulate).
> After see management via JMS message, I think to me it is pobably the best way to manage Broker configuration...
>
> But, for the moment, I am not able to use a queue or topic if it is not already present in JDNI properties (InitialContext).
> After each REST creation, I must reload the InitialContext with the new queue...
>
> Perhaps, vertx-proton was better in that case...
>
> Best regards
>
> Cyril
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>
> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 17:19
> À : users@qpid.apache.org
> Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
>
> On 14 March 2018 at 17:13, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Gordon and Robbie for your answers.
>>
>> I have found the vertx-proton just few second before your response...
>> it is very simple and I think we are going to use it to provide a
>> light and simple server on our "client" java side.
>>
>> About JMS, I have seen a link (but where?) to manage VirtualHost,
>> Exchange and Queue directly via message, it is always possible with
>> Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or our only way is the REST api?
>>
>>
> Which broker are you using? Unfortunately there is not yet a standardised way to manage different brokers.
>
> -- Rob
>
>
>> Thanks again a ot by advance,
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Cyril
>>
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>
>> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 14:20
>> À : users@qpid.apache.org
>> Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point
>> message exchange?
>>
>> On 14/03/18 12:19, Cyril Micoud wrote:
>> > how each system knew the dispatch router?
>>
>> They just need a host and port; that would be the same even if one was
>> directly connecting to the other.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For
>> additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
RE: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message
exchange?
Posted by Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com>.
We use Qpid Broker-J 7.0.x...
We have build a REST service based on Retrofit but it is very coupling with POJO structure (we use Custom POJO instead of Map<String, Object> return by REST api due to the simplicity to understand which object we manipulate).
After see management via JMS message, I think to me it is pobably the best way to manage Broker configuration...
But, for the moment, I am not able to use a queue or topic if it is not already present in JDNI properties (InitialContext).
After each REST creation, I must reload the InitialContext with the new queue...
Perhaps, vertx-proton was better in that case...
Best regards
Cyril
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>
Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 17:19
À : users@qpid.apache.org
Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
On 14 March 2018 at 17:13, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> wrote:
> Thanks Gordon and Robbie for your answers.
>
> I have found the vertx-proton just few second before your response...
> it is very simple and I think we are going to use it to provide a
> light and simple server on our "client" java side.
>
> About JMS, I have seen a link (but where?) to manage VirtualHost,
> Exchange and Queue directly via message, it is always possible with
> Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or our only way is the REST api?
>
>
Which broker are you using? Unfortunately there is not yet a standardised way to manage different brokers.
-- Rob
> Thanks again a ot by advance,
> Best regards,
>
> Cyril
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>
> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 14:20
> À : users@qpid.apache.org
> Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point
> message exchange?
>
> On 14/03/18 12:19, Cyril Micoud wrote:
> > how each system knew the dispatch router?
>
> They just need a host and port; that would be the same even if one was
> directly connecting to the other.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 14 March 2018 at 17:13, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> wrote:
> Thanks Gordon and Robbie for your answers.
>
> I have found the vertx-proton just few second before your response... it
> is very simple and I think we are going to use it to provide a light and
> simple server on our "client" java side.
>
> About JMS, I have seen a link (but where?) to manage VirtualHost, Exchange
> and Queue directly via message, it is always possible with Qpid JMS 0.30.0
> or our only way is the REST api?
>
>
Which broker are you using? Unfortunately there is not yet a standardised
way to manage different brokers.
-- Rob
> Thanks again a ot by advance,
> Best regards,
>
> Cyril
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>
> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 14:20
> À : users@qpid.apache.org
> Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point
> message exchange?
>
> On 14/03/18 12:19, Cyril Micoud wrote:
> > how each system knew the dispatch router?
>
> They just need a host and port; that would be the same even if one was
> directly connecting to the other.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
>
RE: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message
exchange?
Posted by Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com>.
Thanks Gordon and Robbie for your answers.
I have found the vertx-proton just few second before your response... it is very simple and I think we are going to use it to provide a light and simple server on our "client" java side.
About JMS, I have seen a link (but where?) to manage VirtualHost, Exchange and Queue directly via message, it is always possible with Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or our only way is the REST api?
Thanks again a ot by advance,
Best regards,
Cyril
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>
Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 14:20
À : users@qpid.apache.org
Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
On 14/03/18 12:19, Cyril Micoud wrote:
> how each system knew the dispatch router?
They just need a host and port; that would be the same even if one was directly connecting to the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message
exchange?
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 14/03/18 12:19, Cyril Micoud wrote:
> how each system knew the dispatch router?
They just need a host and port; that would be the same even if one was
directly connecting to the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
As Gordon noted, the JMS client can't act as a server for incoming
connections. Its only a client and must connect out, but the other
side can be a broker/router/toaster/other.
The 'reactor' impl which proton-j includes can accept, and there is a
very basic/incomplete/naive 'recv' example which does show that,
however I wouldn't suggest you try it, and I'm not aware of anyone who
actually uses it that way. Proton was originally envisaged as purely a
protocol engine others would use in creating their own clients/servers
etc, and thats how proton-j continues to see most of its use.
One instance of that which you might want to look at would be over at
Vert.x, https://github.com/vert-x3/vertx-proton/blob/master/src/main/java/io/vertx/proton/ProtonServer.java.
There isnt much in docs for sever side beyond the API javadoc, but
theres a very basic example at
https://github.com/vert-x3/vertx-proton/tree/master/src/test/java/io/vertx/proton/example,
and lots of use in the tests one dir up.
Robbie
On 14 March 2018 at 12:19, Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com> wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
>
> Thanks for your answer...
>
> We are agree with your first point and we look to try it as soon as possible.
> But we have also a 3rd system in Java and we need a direct access Java=>Java without any broker.
> I think the solution is your second point?
> In that case, how each system knew the dispatch router?
> Have you an other proposal without dispatch router?
>
> Thanks by advance,
> Bets regards,
>
> Cyril
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>
> Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 11:02
> À : users@qpid.apache.org
> Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
>
> On 14/03/18 08:40, Cyril Micoud wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> We are working with Qpid to set up interoperability between 2 systems,
>> one in Java, the other in C ++.
>>
>> On the C ++ side, we use Qpid Proton 0.17.0 (not the last update due
>> to system constraints) to use the AMQP 1.0 standard.
>>
>> In Java, we started on Qpid JMS 0.30.0 for the simplicity of JMS and
>> compatibility with 1.0 of AMQP.
>>
>> In the nominal case, we use a Broker, but we also need point-to-point
>> access to transfer information from one system to another such as the
>> broker's address and the queues on which we can exchange.
>>
>> However, connection and exchange with the broker is simple to
>> configure, but the point to point in JMS seems compromised (or so we
>> have not yet find the right documentation).
>>
>> We are considering the use of Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 but again, we do
>> not find much example of implementation ...
>>
>> What is the best way to use both communication broker and point-to-point?
>>
>> Anybody can provide us a quick sample of Proton-J usage with and
>> without broker? or a JMS sample to point-to-point usage?
>
> If by point-to-point you mean one system connects to the other directly, then the first thing is to decide which direction that connection happens in. The JMS client, as far as I know, does not let you accept incoming connections. Therefore it would be easier to have the c++ part open a listener on a particular port, and have the JMS client simply connect to that as if it were a broker. That does mean there is some extra stuff the c++ side needs to do to correctly handle the direct connections. You can have a look at the broker example to get some
> ideas:
> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid-proton/repo?p=qpid-proton.git;a=blob;f=examples/cpp/broker.cpp;h=f48fb376f65dbeeed9fae71092168de732b19356;hb=HEAD
>
> However, one other thing to consider, is to use the dispatch router between the systems. This way the two systems connect out, as if to a broker, but can send each other messages that are acknowledged end-to-end with no store-and-forward between them. You can also have the links propagated if you need to. I think it often makes the overall system simpler. It depends of course on the reasons and detailed use cases for the point-to-point communication channel.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
RE: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message
exchange?
Posted by Cyril Micoud <CM...@vitechnology.com>.
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for your answer...
We are agree with your first point and we look to try it as soon as possible.
But we have also a 3rd system in Java and we need a direct access Java=>Java without any broker.
I think the solution is your second point?
In that case, how each system knew the dispatch router?
Have you an other proposal without dispatch router?
Thanks by advance,
Bets regards,
Cyril
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>
Envoyé : mercredi 14 mars 2018 11:02
À : users@qpid.apache.org
Objet : Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message exchange?
On 14/03/18 08:40, Cyril Micoud wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> We are working with Qpid to set up interoperability between 2 systems,
> one in Java, the other in C ++.
>
> On the C ++ side, we use Qpid Proton 0.17.0 (not the last update due
> to system constraints) to use the AMQP 1.0 standard.
>
> In Java, we started on Qpid JMS 0.30.0 for the simplicity of JMS and
> compatibility with 1.0 of AMQP.
>
> In the nominal case, we use a Broker, but we also need point-to-point
> access to transfer information from one system to another such as the
> broker's address and the queues on which we can exchange.
>
> However, connection and exchange with the broker is simple to
> configure, but the point to point in JMS seems compromised (or so we
> have not yet find the right documentation).
>
> We are considering the use of Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 but again, we do
> not find much example of implementation ...
>
> What is the best way to use both communication broker and point-to-point?
>
> Anybody can provide us a quick sample of Proton-J usage with and
> without broker? or a JMS sample to point-to-point usage?
If by point-to-point you mean one system connects to the other directly, then the first thing is to decide which direction that connection happens in. The JMS client, as far as I know, does not let you accept incoming connections. Therefore it would be easier to have the c++ part open a listener on a particular port, and have the JMS client simply connect to that as if it were a broker. That does mean there is some extra stuff the c++ side needs to do to correctly handle the direct connections. You can have a look at the broker example to get some
ideas:
https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid-proton/repo?p=qpid-proton.git;a=blob;f=examples/cpp/broker.cpp;h=f48fb376f65dbeeed9fae71092168de732b19356;hb=HEAD
However, one other thing to consider, is to use the dispatch router between the systems. This way the two systems connect out, as if to a broker, but can send each other messages that are acknowledged end-to-end with no store-and-forward between them. You can also have the links propagated if you need to. I think it often makes the overall system simpler. It depends of course on the reasons and detailed use cases for the point-to-point communication channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Qpid JMS 0.30.0 or Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 to point-to-point message
exchange?
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 14/03/18 08:40, Cyril Micoud wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> We are working with Qpid to set up interoperability between 2 systems,
> one in Java, the other in C ++.
>
> On the C ++ side, we use Qpid Proton 0.17.0 (not the last update due to
> system constraints) to use the AMQP 1.0 standard.
>
> In Java, we started on Qpid JMS 0.30.0 for the simplicity of JMS and
> compatibility with 1.0 of AMQP.
>
> In the nominal case, we use a Broker, but we also need point-to-point
> access to transfer information from one system to another such as the
> broker's address and the queues on which we can exchange.
>
> However, connection and exchange with the broker is simple to configure,
> but the point to point in JMS seems compromised (or so we have not yet
> find the right documentation).
>
> We are considering the use of Qpid Proton-J 0.26.0 but again, we do not
> find much example of implementation ...
>
> What is the best way to use both communication broker and point-to-point?
>
> Anybody can provide us a quick sample of Proton-J usage with and without
> broker? or a JMS sample to point-to-point usage?
If by point-to-point you mean one system connects to the other directly,
then the first thing is to decide which direction that connection
happens in. The JMS client, as far as I know, does not let you accept
incoming connections. Therefore it would be easier to have the c++ part
open a listener on a particular port, and have the JMS client simply
connect to that as if it were a broker. That does mean there is some
extra stuff the c++ side needs to do to correctly handle the direct
connections. You can have a look at the broker example to get some
ideas:
https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid-proton/repo?p=qpid-proton.git;a=blob;f=examples/cpp/broker.cpp;h=f48fb376f65dbeeed9fae71092168de732b19356;hb=HEAD
However, one other thing to consider, is to use the dispatch router
between the systems. This way the two systems connect out, as if to a
broker, but can send each other messages that are acknowledged
end-to-end with no store-and-forward between them. You can also have the
links propagated if you need to. I think it often makes the overall
system simpler. It depends of course on the reasons and detailed use
cases for the point-to-point communication channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org