[rabbitmq-discuss] request for help!
rafaels at redhat.com
Thu May 6 18:56:47 BST 2010
Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 05/06/2010 05:12 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Gordon Sim<gsim at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I would expect an implementation to define policy around where links
>>> with these two types of distribution mode can be used. E.g. a pub-sub
>>> topic might only allow non-destructive links were valid, a plain queue
>>> might only allow destructive links and a browsable queue might allow
>>> both (with what I think are then obvious if non-deterministic
>>> implications for concurrent links with different modes).
>> Is there any use case where 'destructive' or 'non destructive'
>> behaviour should be a property of the LINK rather than the NODE?
> Browsing a queue (you would want to allow consumers and browsers, though
> most likely at different times).
One point of clarification, the destructive/non-destructive property is
not actually associated with a link, it's actually part of the source
specification. There is no distinction between destructive and
non-destructive links from the perspective of the transport. It makes no
difference to the transport whether the result of an ack is to advance a
cursor or to dequeue a message.
The distribution-mode field of the source specification simply permits
the application to indicate how the link is/should be treated by the
node, in other words destructive/non-destructive is not a "property of
the link", but rather a classification of the outgoing links from a
certain kind of node, and this classification has no impact on how links
function, only on how the node behaves with respect to the two different
classes of outgoing links.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss