Message Queue vs Web Services

Question

Under what conditions would one favor apps talking via a message queue instead of via web services  I just mean XML or JSON or YAML or whatever over HTTP here  not any particular type    I have to talk between two apps on a local network  One will be a web app and have to request commands on another app  running on different hardware   The requests are things like creating users  moving files around  and creating directories  Under what conditions would I prefer XML Web Services  or straight TCP or something  to using a Message queue    The web app is Ruby on Rails  but I think the question is broader than that

User · Answer

Message queues are asynchronous and can retry a number of times if delivery fails. Use a message queue if the requester doesn't need to wait for a response.

The phrase "web services" make me think of synchronous calls to a distributed component over HTTP. Use web services if the requester needs a response back.

User · Answer

Message queues are ideal for requests which may take a long time to process   Requests are queued and can be processed offline without blocking the client   If the client needs to be notified of completion  you can provide a way for the client to periodically check the status of the request   Message queues also allow you to scale better across time   It improves your ability to handle bursts of heavy activity  because the actual processing can be distributed across time   Note that message queues and web services are orthogonal concepts  i e  they are not mutually exclusive   E g  you can have a XML based web service which acts as an interface to a message queue   I think the distinction your looking for is Message Queues versus Request Response  the latter is when the request is processed synchronously

User · Answer

I think in general  you d want a web service for a blocking task  this tasks needs to be completed before we execute more code   and a message queue for a non-blocking task  could take quite a while  but we don t need to wait for it

User · Answer

There s been a fair amount of recent research in considering how REST HTTP calls could replace the message queue concept   If you introduce the concept of a process and a task as a resource  the need for middle messaging layer starts to evaporate   Ex   POST  task name     - Returns a 202 accepted status immediately     - Returns a resource url for the created task   task name X     - Returns a resource url for the started process   process Y  GET  process Y     - Returns status of ongoing process   A task can have multiple steps for initialization  and a process can return status when polled or POST to a callback URL when complete   This is dead simple  and becomes quite powerful when you realize that you can now subscribe to an rss atom feed of all running processes and tasks without any middle layer   Any queuing system is going to require some sort of web front end anyway  and this concept has it built in without another layer of custom code   Your resources exist until you delete them  which means you can view historical information long after the process and task complete   You have built in service discovery  even for a task that has multiple steps  without any extra complicated protocols     GET  task name     - returns form with required fields  POST  URL provided form s  action  attribute    Your service discovery is an HTML form - a universal and human readable format     The entire flow can be used programmatically or by a human  using universally accepted tools   It s a client driven  and therefore RESTful   Every tool created for the web can drive your business processes   You still have alternate message channels by POSTing asynchronously to a separate array of log servers   After you consider it for a while  you sit back and start to realize that REST may just eliminate the need for a messaging queue and an ESB altogether   http   www infoq com presentations BPM-with-REST

User · Answer

When you use a web service you have a client and a server    If the server fails the client must take responsibility to handle the error  When the server is working again the client is responsible of resending it  If the server gives a response to the call and the client fails the operation is lost  You don t have contention  that is  if million of clients call a web service on one server in a second  most probably your server will go down  You can expect an immediate response from the server  but you can handle asynchronous calls too    When you use a message queue like RabbitMQ  Beanstalkd  ActiveMQ  IBM MQ Series  Tuxedo you expect different and more fault tolerant results    If the server fails  the queue persist the message  optionally  even if the machine shutdown   When the server is working again  it receives the pending message  If the server gives a response to the call and the client fails  if the client didn t acknowledge the response the message is persisted  You have contention  you can decide how many requests are handled by the server  call it worker instead   You don t expect an immediate synchronous response  but you can implement simulate synchronous calls    Message Queues has a lot more features but this is some rule of thumb to decide if you want to handle error conditions yourself or leave them to the message queue

[web-services] Message Queue vs. Web Services?

Examples related to web-services

Examples related to message-queue