Talk:Message-oriented middleware

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Message-oriented middleware article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] MOM asynchronous?

"that relies on asynchronous message"

IMO MOM is not always asynchronous. -- annon - 11:57, 12 April 2006

I think that is dealt with in the Disadvantages section where most MOM systems have facilities to group a request and a response as a single pseudo-synchronous transaction. - annon 10:29, 9 October 2006

MOM by nature and definition is asynchronous. It can seem confusing because async communication can happen in real time. Also, to muddy the water further, some implementations use a MOM solution to furnish part of a sync request, which can lead one to beleive that MOM is part of a synch request.

[edit] Spelling 'queuing'

There seems to be disagreement over the spelling for queuing. can we please leave it WITHOUT the "e", which is the traditional spelling? -- Rbpasker 20:01, 15 July 2006


Theking2 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I don't think there is a "traditional spelling" of the word queueing/queuing [[1]]. The difficulty being that it refers to both the mathematical theory and the more common line and the bus-stop.

[edit] MOM Products

removed section per Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a repository for lists, directories or Advocacy of commercial products and/or websites. NPOV requires views to be represented without bias, this applies not only to article text, but to companies, company lists, products, external links, or any other material as well.--Hu12 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I think showing a list of the most popular MOM products is essential for most readers to understand what is MOM. But I agree that no commercial view or biased opinion on products should be emitted. (Pmerson, August 2007)

What about adding a list of open source & commercial products without any comments to keep it neutral? I agree it's a sort of product directory, but it has a real added value to the article and isn't a standalone list. The following list is not complete but could be used as a start point: Open-source

Commercial

I'll leave my post here for a couple of weeks before editing the page. --E Ficheux (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other standards that are worth mentioning

Brian Gregory 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Theking2 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I believe these products refer to Message Queuing products and not necessarily to MOM. Wouldn't a link to technology article Message Queue be more apt. After the Message Queue article is updated of course.

Johannes Kingma 19:35, 9 April 2008 (CET)

[edit] Sponsored Links?

Is the "sponsored" link at the bottom of the page for the "Enterprise Integration Patterns" book legal? Can I post links to my materials too? (I'm still learning wikipedia rules and etiquette - please don't kill the Newbie) Brian Gregory 05:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian, I agree. On 23 Nov 2006, user 65.87.179.138 added a link to a book advertisement (Enterprise Integration Patterns) to 4 different pages. Granted, those pages were at least tangentially related to the articles in question, but the site contained little information besides teasers. If we include links to all books that are somewhat related to the subject, the lists will be long and useless. It makes sense to include references to books if those books are primarily targeted to the subject. Fordsfords 23:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)