Web Application Messaging Protocol: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Alter: template type. Add: date, isbn, author pars. 1-2. Correct ISBN10 to ISBN13. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Suggested by Neko-chan | Category:Internet protocols | via #UCB_Category 120/275
mNo edit summary
Line 173:
WAMP also targets the IoT, where it is used in the same way as [[MQTT]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://into.aalto.fi/download/attachments/12324178/Huang_Fuguo_thesis_2.pdf|title=Moreover, we compared WAMP with other registered WebSocket subprotocols (MBWS, SOAP and STOMP) in terms of the related features; and with other potential protocols (CoAP and MQTT), in terms of the related practical deployments.}}</ref> as a light and efficient medium to orchestrate clusters of connected objects. The implementations in various languages make it suitable to control and monitor small devices such as the [[Raspberry Pi]] (in Python) or the Tessel<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY7KzrRm8XY Tessel alarm app with Crossbar.io]</ref> (in JavaScript).
 
And last but not least, WAMP can act as an enterprise service bus, serving as the link between micro-services like one would do with [[CorbaCommon Object Request Broker Architecture|CORBA]], [[ZeroMQ]], [[Apache Thrift]], [[SOAP]] or [[AMQP]].
 
==Evolution==
Line 191:
 
On the other hand, WAMP does not try to achieve some goals of other protocols:
* Full object passing like [[Common Object Request Broker Architecture|CORBA]].
* Data synchronization like DDP.
* Peer-to-peer communication like [[ZeroMQ]].