Re: [amqp-ms] May be of interest: The RFP for the OOI Federated Messaging System was released last week

[Matthew Arrott <marrott@novgp.com>]

Andreas,

To help understand the context for this RFP, it is good to understand the
proposed solutions are the central communication backbone for a code base
that started in 2009.  Our development cycle is 16 months, The code base
is already in production and the current Release in development goes into
Alpha within a couple of months and into Production in early 2013. To date
the code base utilizes 0-9-1.

The RFP is intended to afforded us the opportunity to use the awarded
solution in the upcoming release without having to address
re-implementation of the messaging layer interface and the potential
incompatibilities. 

The plan is to make the transition to 1.0 in the next development cycle
which starts later this summer and will go into production in early 2014.
The goal is to make the transition to 1.0 during the Inception phase of
the 2014 Release. If the transition proves to be straight forward and
proses no significant side effects we will consider a late technology
introduction into the 2013 Release. That said, we see this as a remote
opportunity.

For the pure 1.0 provider, there are number of open source 0-9-1 solutions
available that could be integrate in the proposal to bridge the transition.

As with all production code bases, supplying the need of one's user
community comes first over any technology strategy. I am sure we can all
appreciate that.

Matthew

  

-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Mueller <am@iit.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:56:30 +0200
To: Matthew Arrott <marrott@novgp.com>
Cc: AMQP Member Section <amqp-ms@lists.oasis-open.org>, Jeff Wiederholt
<jeff.wiederholt@solacesystems.com>
Subject: Re: [amqp-ms] May be of interest: The RFP for the OOI Federated
Messaging System was released last week


Am 11.07.2012 um 21:33 schrieb Matthew Arrott:

> For clarification: Rob asked the following:
> 
> [The RFP] seems to say that AMQP 0.9.1 is required, and only that
>³Proposer shall describe their plans for support of AMQP 1.0 and the
>expected timing, path and costs (if known) to transition to an AMQP 1.0
>solution.²
> 
> This is the correct reading. The selection process will depend on the
>proposal's answer to the migration path to 1.0. It was our assessment
>that we could not make AMQP 1.0 a hard requirement in advance of it being
>ratified (thus the softer wording).

The final AMQP 1.0 spec of the AMQP WG exists since last year and it
wasn't changed since then. We've spend the time with formatting the spec
(basically). There is actually no reason to *require* AMQP 0.9.1
especially since you are one of the chairs from whom I expect a 100%
dedication towards 1.0. Making 0.9.1 mandatory in such a big project
damages AMQP 1.0 even more. This is a slap into the face for everyone
spending money and work into implementing AMQP 1.0. Thanks for that, Matt!

-- 
Andreas Mueller
IIT Software GmbH, Bremen/Germany
http://www.swiftmq.com





IIT Software GmbH
Fahrenheitstr. 1, D28359 Bremen, Germany
Tel: +49 421 2208-166, Fax: +49 421 2208-167
Amtsgericht Bremen, HRB 18624, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Andreas Mueller
Steuernummer: 71/572/04100, VAT: DE199945912


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: amqp-ms-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: amqp-ms-help@lists.oasis-open.org