Some random stuff in there:
- Right off the bat, the author (Jeff Gould) calls out Rendezvous as a guaranteed message delivery system. But that's actually the opposite of Rendezvous's raison d'etre. Rendezvous is best as a super-low-latency tick distribution system where its default best-effort semantics are good enough, not a guaranteed message delivery system. That's because it's an inherently distributed system. Yes, there are advanced features of Rendezvous that make it nearly guaranteed, but they're pretty ugly to be fair.
- He conflates bridging with heterogenous client connectivity. In general, the JMS API-driven approach that most vendors do with interoperability actually is good enough, because there's going to be something that has to bridge them no matter what, and many different JMS-based systems allow for automatic bridging from a broker to another system quite easily. Just because the code wasn't all written by one vendor (the broker by Vendor A, the client library to interact with the other broker by Vendor B), it isn't a massive problem.
Furthermore, most of the time when you have such an interop problem, someone has to write some bloody code to actually implement all the tiny little differences between the two systems (such as ID issues: if both companies are using the same software, there's probably a conflicting ID namespace somewhere that requires translation). That involves a bridge.
Imagining that there will be a world where two companies running two ever-so-slightly different versions of the same software package will be able to just exchange messages willy-nilly and all will be well and the programmers can all just go home is rubbish.
- He assumes that AMQP is a replacement for the two major products that he directly calls out to: IBM MQ (just calling it that since I will always think of it as MQSeries) and Rendezvous. And then refers to Sonic. But here's the thing: none of the three has almost anything to do with each other, and each is used in pretty different spaces.
- IBM MQ is largely used in older systems (think flat-out legacy). It's big, it's slow, it runs on mainframes, and I really don't know of a single person doing work similar to me that's actually deployed it out of choice in ages. And you know what? AMQP will do absolutely 0 to that market. It's very legacy and very entrenched and IBM has absolutely no incentive to change it and never will.
- Rendezvous is a completely decentralized MOM system ideally suited to low-latency best-effort systems (tick distribution, enterprise system monitoring). It does something completely different to IBM MQ, and you would never replace it with MQ. And it has competitors (29 West is my favorite to give a call-out to).
- SonicMQ and other pure-play JMS vendors (Fiorano, Tibco EMS, ActiveMQ, ...) have a broker-based model with guaranteed delivery and best-effort built in. They're both a superset of the IBM MQ and Rendezvous systems, with some special sauce out of having at least a marginally intelligent approach to broker-based middleware worked in.
AMQP does a similar thing at the network protocol layer: it defines a semantic layer that assumes a centralized broker-based middleware system and wraps a network protocol around that. It really competes more with the JMS pure-plays than either IBM MQ or Rendezvous. But I don't think it as a protocol provides a compelling reason for people who actually know and want to be on a distributed system like Rendezvous to shift, and people on IBM MQ are there because they have to be.
None of this is to say that the core of his message isn't correct, which is that AMQP is a great concept for a variety of reasons, but his introduction is setting himself up for something he didn't need to.
I still stand by my original point:
- Vendors cannot support every possible programming language, OS, chip, or compiler with a closed/proprietary client driver.
- Programming language experts are superior at doing that and can provide open source versions.
- This naturally and inevitably leads to possible interoperability gains.