[rabbitmq-discuss] Regarding FIFO Support

[Timothy Chen]

I thought I read that somewhere as well, but definitely good to know
there is ordering support now in RabbitMQ (a new feature? ).

Tim


On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 15:02 -0600, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> Matthias,
> 
> That's good to know. Could have sworn there has been discussion here
> about ensuring order of delivery is up to the consumer/producers
> involved.
> 
> -J
> 
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Matthias Radestock
> <matthias at rabbitmq.com> wrote:
> > Tim, Jason,
> >
> > Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Timothy Chen <tim at evri.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I remember reading from somewhere that RabbitMQ doesn't support FIFO, or
> >>> in other words doesn't gurantee ordering of messages being
> >>> published.
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if this is true?
> >>
> >> This is true.
> >
> > or not.
> >
> > RabbitMQ conforms to the ordering guarantees specified by AMQP. See section
> > 4.7 of the AMQP 0-9-1 spec:
> >
> > <quote>
> >
> > 4.7 Content Ordering Guarantees
> >
> > The order of methods flowing across a channel is stable: methods are
> > received in the same order as they are sent. This is guaranteed by the
> > TCP/IP transport used by AMQP. Further, contents are processed in a
> > stable manner by the server. Specifically, contents flowing through a single
> > path within the server will remain ordered. For contents of a given priority
> > flowing through a single path, we define a content
> > processing path as consisting of one incoming channel, one exchange, one
> > queue, and one outgoing channel.
> >
> > Guidelines for implementors:
> >
> > The server MUST preserve the order of contents flowing through a single
> > content processing path, unless the redelivered field is set on the
> > Basic.Deliver or Basic.Get-Ok methods, and according to the rules governing
> > the conditions under which that field can be set.
> >
> > </quote>
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Matthias.
> >