tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003063374827736283.post1196359264049946049..comments2008-08-09T15:34:44.507-07:00Paul Fremantlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15326219720808613358noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003063374827736283.post-82027267611991064222008-08-09T15:34:00.000-07:002008-08-09T15:34:00.000-07:00Guy,<BR/><BR/>Your observation is true but only within the current scope of time. The AMQP roadmap addresses this. Broker to Broker federation is the next major aspect of the protocol we will work on after completing 1.0. Unfortunate there is only so much scope that can be managed at one time and still hope to get resolution.<BR/><BR/>Please see the comment I left on your posting regarding this concern for a fuller explanation.<BR/><BR/>http://guycrets.blogspot.com/2008/08<BR/>/amqp-enthusiasm.html<BR/><BR/>MatthewMatthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03795184193730147613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003063374827736283.post-76044350173159077712008-08-08T01:59:00.000-07:002008-08-08T01:59:00.000-07:00One single protocol for use within the firewall and between business partners would be ideal. But for communication between AMQP servers, the AMQP spec only mentions "explicit bridges".<BR/><BR/>As such, AMQP focuses on messaging within the corporate firewall. Having a standard protocol doesn't add much value there. There are plenty of good and free/cheap MOM implementations.<BR/><BR/>So I can't understand your enthusiasm about AMQP.Guy Cretshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12357277914036649295noreply@blogger.com