[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq

Tue Jan 6 10:02:25 GMT 2009

Martin Sustrik wrote:
> 
>>> True, but a system as a whole needs to be able to rely on the 
>>> semantics of an exchange and the lifecycle of the queue. I think what 
>>> confuses me is the notion of a queue vanishing due to some 
>>> unspecified error, and I would feel very uncomfortable having the 
>>> broker simply continue without signaling that potentially 
>>> catastrophic violation of the specified semantics of a broker.
> 
> Sorry if I haven't followed the thread closely enough, but do I 
> understand correctly that what you are discussing is atomicity guarantee 
> in the case where there is a bug in the broker implementation?

No, not really. We have gone off on something of a tangent here, 
discussing the notion of a queue disappearing from a broker due to some 
bug, without it being deleted due to explicit request (or cancellation 
of last subscriber in the case of an auto-deleted queue).

> I would say you have no guarantees whatsoever if there is a bug in the 
> code.

I agree.