[rabbitmq-discuss] Passive versus active declaration of exchanges and queues

[Tony Garnock-Jones]

Irmo Manie wrote:
> This does makes sense, so in theory, when wanting a passive declaration
> over active, you would first try passive and then active.

Well, another way of looking at it is to try active first, and never use
passive :-) It will succeed if everything is copacetic, and otherwise it will
close the channel with an error. Adding the call to passive doesn't actually
buy you anything.

Cheers,
  Tony