

WAMP - WebSocket Application Messaging Protocol - pooriaazimi
http://wamp.ws

======
davidarkemp2
Please consider changing the name - it's already in common use for Windows
Apache, MySql and PHP (similar to LAMP).

~~~
AhtiK
According to the footer:

"WAMP and the WAMP logo are trademarks of Tavendo GmbH."

Possibly the registration is either pending or registered in a non-US country
as the only live WAMP trademark registration I could find was a pasta sauce:
[http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4004:dv...](http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4004:dvjucv.3.3)

Regarding the name itself: WAMP is the same as the massively popular Windows
LAMP stack. Unnecessary conflict.

But maybe WSAMP could be a nice alternative. AMP postfix hinting "amplifier".
The risk of using WS prefix is the relevance to WebService.

~~~
BerislavLopac
A name or logo doesn't have to be registered to be a trademark. Note that it
doesn't say "registered trademarks". It's completely valid and legal. (IANAL)

~~~
oberstet
Yes, exactly. Currently, it is not registered, but claimed and in commercial
use. Note that this is only done to protect the integrity of WAMP over time ..
"if you fork it, thats cool, but don't call it WAMP". WAMP is an open
protocol, free to anyone!

------
odiroot
Why so many posts about the name?

This is great -- especially with all these readymade implementations. Also
multiple WebSocket protocol versions support is really important.

------
rdtsc
Another interesting option is:

[http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2012/05/14/introducing-
rabbitmq...](http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2012/05/14/introducing-rabbitmq-web-
stomp/)

It is STOMP messaging to the web via RabbitMQ. It also has a fallback to long
polling via (SockJS) if websockets are not available (say because of IE8).

------
rizwan
Being WebSocket-based only has the unfortunate consequence of not working well
on cellular networks, because some like Verizon will often blackhole WS
connections.

This means that if you are building a real time app that has any chance to be
used on mobile, you'll always need a fallback.

~~~
oberstet
While it MAY be true that WS is blocked by some mobile carriers (though I
haven't seen it myself .. at least in Germany), providers will have more
problems blocking WSS since it runs over TLS. Since WSS only starts after a
TLS connection is established, identifying the traffic as WebSocket requires
intercepting TLS using MITM proxy techniques. This in turn requires the
ability to inject ad-hoc "fake" certificates into browsers .. which is
possible if there is an appropriate CA cert for the proxy installed in the
browser. This can and is be done within controlled envionments like corporate
networks where you can force user browsers to incorporate such CA certs. I
never have seen it on public networks. It would be a major security and
privacy issue. My provider reading my online banking traffic? Yes, please! I
sue them to hell and make some bucks;)

------
qatalo
WsAMP would be a more appropriate, recognizable, brandable and less clashing
name.

~~~
BerislavLopac
I'd call it SwampMonster. ;-)

------
mogui
i liked it besides the name. It's a nice try of standardization of home made
solution on top of WS. the name though is bad, but it seems he has registered
it :P

------
drivebyacct2
This is similar to <http://socket.io>, right?

~~~
oberstet
WAMP was specifically designed to do both RPC (think AJAX-on-steriods) plus
PubSub within one protocol based on WebSocket. socket.io seems to be PubSub
only, but transport neutral. WAMP currently is only defined for WebSocket
transport, but was designed to work over any reliable, bidirectional, message
oriented transport. A future version of WAMP may define new transports, and
also new serialization formats (currently JSON only, but WebSocket also
provides binary transparency, so there may be value in having a binary WAMP,
i.e. based on Bencode).

