Hi Matthias Yes. Command Message is a pattern only. This solution was not used to integrate services of third party companies which were mostly SOAP and REST based. Solution was used as an internal message format for routing between various endpoints and where there was a freedom of defining AMQP and WS message format. CoAP over WebSockets and CoAP message format in general meets our described requirements as well. Only complain I would have is weird mapping of actions and subscription requests to limited set of CoAP methods. But this is matter of opinion and semantic cleanness with no practical limitations. Regards Robert On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Kovatsch, Matthias < matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com> wrote: > Hi Robert > > > > Command message is one of the enterprise integration patterns. http://www. > enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/patterns/messaging/CommandMessage.html > with free inner structure. > > > > Okay, that part does not define much (basically that it is a message sent > from A to B). > > > > Described inner structure is inhouse solution designed based on experience > with HTTP, REST, SOAP, XML-RPC, NETCONF. > > > > Yes, so you defined a protocol that you needed, since WebSockets alone > cannot provide for that. > > Do you have experience with using this inhouse solution across multiple > stakeholders, e.g., to integrate services of other companies? > > > > Rationale behind the design was to abstract away transport protocol > specific stuff and to create message format which could be reused by WS for > example. > > > > Requirement was to: > > - manipulate data in a hierarchical datatree (like REST) > > - call (invoke) actions in a simple way (like XML-RPC) > > - pub/sub (like MQTT). > > > > What would be your conclusion when comparing this with, for instance, > CoAP-over-WebSockets (considering REST+Observe over a firewall-friendly > transport)? > > > > Thanks, > > Matthias >
Received on Monday, 24 October 2016 16:50:50 UTC