[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq

Tue Jan 6 12:28:50 GMT 2009

Alexis Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Tim Coote <tim+rabbitmq.com at coote.org> wrote:
>> I'm getting the sense that as far as AMQP is concerned, the word
>> Transaction is not helpful
> 
> I must admit that I tend to share this view.  However, it is also
> clear from people's comments, notably Gordon and Carl, that other
> views are defensible.  

My view is that transaction in AMQP means the same as it does in other 
messaging systems e.g. JMS. Specifically in my view full atomicity is at 
the very heart of its purpose.

That the original text failed to convey this unambiguously is 
unfortunate. It is this lack of clarity in the specification that I 
believe is unhelpful, not the use of the word 'transaction', as the 
intended semantics are very much transactional in the traditional sense 
of that word and other implementations do provide that guarantee.