Comments on: SOAP over JMS: No Such Thing

By: rishabh

rishabh — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 06:39:23 +0000

SOAP is a high level protocol independent of the underlying transport mechanism. In the current world its most common transport mechanist is http because on most servers and DMZ’s port 80 and 443 are open. the soap spec does not mandate http. I do believe if we want guaranteed delivery we can use JMS under the hood.
JMS itself is the same in the sence its independent of the underlying transport protocol and has implementations that use multiple transport mechanisms like rmi-iiop, plain tcp/ip with wire format, stomp etc.

By: arunav

arunav — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:56:15 +0000

There is a nice diagram that shows conceptually what soap over jms is :
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/library/tutorials/0903_adams/

Its got a nice description of soap over jms internals.

By: Ed Hernandez

Ed Hernandez — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:23:28 +0000

I see your point but still in some cases I see JMS like an abstract protocol (like Mariusz indicated) that allows me to process the message in a very different way, that being asynchronously.

W3C released back in June the “SOAP over Java Message Service 1.0″ spec candidate. It might be a lack of a better name the reason why SOAP over JMS is used often. I think the problem might be if we don’t want to called SOAP over JMS then how to call it?

“SOAP over RMI in the middle using JMS API at both ends to achieve asynchronous processing” hmmm. it won’t fly.

I agree that JMS can not be defined as a pure transport protocol, nor a pure communication protocol so it is a bit of both maybe or maybe not, it is really up for debate.
The most important part for me is that it enables asynchronous SOAP post that is needed in some cases over the synchronous SOAP over HTTP so if HTTP give us the synchronous aspect of transport and JMS gives the opposite asynchronous then I see a reason to called SOAP over JMS when in reality the “middle” part is not mentioned.
Bea (now Oracle) goes as far as describe JMS as a transport protocol due of its asynchronous nature maybe again for lack of a better term.

By: Mariusz Brylant

Mariusz Brylant — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:55:41 +0000

I would be actually bold enough to say that JMS is both an API and an “abstract protocol”. Think about different types of messages like Object, Text, Map. They define an abstract structure for the exchanges thus limiting what can be send and accepted on the endpoints. Still, that abstract message type like all other abstract structures requires muscles to cover the skeleton and build the body and that is exactly how I would see SOAP formatted message in this context

By: ethan allen

ethan allen — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:19:28 +0000

I’m puzzled. As far as I know, the only thing you can do with a SOAP message with JMS is to put a SOAP-encoded message on a queue via JMS. Is that what we are calling “SOAP over JMS”? If so, I think that is indeed very misleading … leaving out the need for a message queue is kind of important IMO.

Do we mean something else by “SOAP over JMS” ?

By: QalleQula

QalleQula — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:31:45 +0000

http://www.w3.org/Submission/SOAPJMS/

By: Singh

Singh — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:26:13 +0000

Well said Brent.
End of day, clients want to send a XML message, from one point to another and they want message delivery guarantee and JMS specification provides that (read pub-sub). For confused people ‘SOAP using JMS’ may work.

By: Gandu

Gandu — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:31:45 +0000

Awesome comments from both Parand and Brent.

By: Avijeet

Avijeet — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:22:39 +0000

Well said Brent ! You have grasped the point and have given the just reply Good mate.

By: Brent

Brent — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:00:52 +0000

By the way, I’ve read most of your blog. I’ve enjoyed it. Thanks!