[rabbitmq-discuss] Questions about how best to use RabbitMQ
stevej at gmail.com
Tue Nov 4 00:34:50 GMT 2008
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Ben Hood <0x6e6562 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Steve Jenson <stevej at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I see, so we wouldn't be able to take advantage of fanout exchanges?
>> Fanout exchanges seem efficiently implemented such that each queue
>> doesn't keep an individual copy of the message. If we can't use fanout
>> exchanges, that would seem to indiciate increased memory pressure on
>> the broker?
> I don't know if follow this. Are you saying that messages routed to
> queues using a fanout exchange are not copied, rather each queue holds
> a reference to each unique message?
>> Very interesting. Do you mean capabilities in the KeyKOS/E language sense?
> I guess, but I don't want put my hand in the fire because I am not an
> expert on this subject.
> Essentially I am referring to an alternative to plain jane ACLs, for
> example as described here:
Yeah, EROS was the successor to KeyKOS.
I think capability theory could work very well for this problem
domain. Please be sure to take a look at the E language, it's a hybrid
object-functional language with actors built on the JVM
(http://erights.org) that uses capability theory for secure
distributed computation. If you want to connect to a remote E server,
you need a key that you're given out-of-band (like via email, etc) and
the connection is made over SSL so nobody else should be able to steal
Also, the cap-talk mailing list is fairly active and very helpful.
The world experts on capability security are all there.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss