He didn't mention IBM WebSphere MQ or Oracle Tuxedo that have being used in complex scenarios before the products in the list.<p>I would add my implementations and resources, even if they were for educational purposes:<p>i) Persisting Native Python Queues: <a href="http://blog.databigbang.com/persisting-native-python-queues/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.databigbang.com/persisting-native-python-queues/</a><p>ii) Adding Acknowledgement Semantics to a Persistent Queue: <a href="http://blog.databigbang.com/adding-acknowledgement-semantics-to-a-persistent-queue/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.databigbang.com/adding-acknowledgement-semantics...</a><p>iii) Esoteric Queue Scheduling Disciplines (an essay about a new kind of queue): <a href="http://blog.databigbang.com/esoteric-queue-scheduling-disciplines/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.databigbang.com/esoteric-queue-scheduling-discip...</a><p>iv) Using Queues in Web Crawling and Analysis Infrastructure (just informative): <a href="http://blog.databigbang.com/using-queues-in-web-crawling-and-analysis-infrastructure/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.databigbang.com/using-queues-in-web-crawling-and...</a>
No Celery, no RabbitMQ, but 0mq, i don't know if i should take this seriously..<p>Just putting some google search hits on a dedicated website, aren't we?
I've always found having to deal with background workers a pain in the butt. Not only do you have to set up additional servers (queue and worker servers), but also you run into problems as a result of your own naivety--such as not using a connection pool for workers so the startup time is too slow, or using a library that doesn't handle timeouts. Also, I find that I have little visibility into the queuing throughput, or if I chain jobs for workers (result of one worker goes to another worker), I have no idea if the data made it all the way through.<p>Does anyone else find it a pain, or just me?<p>Also, has anyone ever tried workers as a service, like iron.io? Are there others, and was it worth it?
Here are more:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_queue#See_also" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_queue#See_also</a><p><a href="http://web2.uwindsor.ca/math/hlynka/qsoft.html" rel="nofollow">http://web2.uwindsor.ca/math/hlynka/qsoft.html</a><p>Man, wish I had time to help you complete it, I have crawled the web thoroughly harvesting all worthy message queues, but my bookmarks are so unorganized because I used to have all important stuff in Chrome, which really has ZERO support in organizing things. Once you bookmark something, it's gone, except it's in your bookmark bar.<p>Then I switched to Firefox, which has better support for organizing things, starting with Tab-Groups, Tags for Bookmarks etc. unfortunately it's not helping to organize bookmarks too. Importing all chrome bookmarks leaves me with an unmanageable task of sorting things.
I like the idea of having a page listing all libraries regarding a certain topic. What's the advantage of a github + Rails solution has over a wiki page?
You should add RQ in there!
<a href="http://www.slideshare.net/sylvinus/why-and-how-pricing-assistant-migrated-from-celery-to-rq-parispy-2" rel="nofollow">http://www.slideshare.net/sylvinus/why-and-how-pricing-assis...</a>
More useful than a comprehensive list of all queuing libraries would be a comparison of the best ones with tl;dr summaries of how each works, pros & cons of each approach, and some consistent benchmarks.
I've always liked beanstalkd, unfortunately it still has no authentication support so you're unlikely to see it catch on in the PaaS environments any time soon (unless someone hooks SASL into it).
For this to be useful it really needs to be groupable by programming language.<p>And why it needs it's own domain/website instead of just a wiki page somewhere I do not understand.