[rabbitmq-discuss] Acknowledging for the deletion of the message

[Michael Bridgen]

On 10/13/2010 11:13 AM, Irmo Manie wrote:
> Shouldn't that parameter be renamed anyway? In my opinion negative
> parameter names always cause to many confusions. 'autoAck' or something
> similar would be much better I reckon.

Renamed where?  It's noAck in the AMQP protocol specification; so, it's 
a choice between faithfully reflecting the protocol or risking further 
confusion by reversing the negation. (To be fair, some client libraries 
actually do do this, and the sky doesn't fall)

Probably better would be to avoid the double or triple negative by using 
an argument that isn't boolean, in APIs.  For instance, "ack-mode" which 
can be "auto" or "client".

mkb.

> /2cents
> Irmo
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Sackman <matthew at rabbitmq.com
> <mailto:matthew at rabbitmq.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:59:25AM +0530, Kshitiz Garg wrote:
>      > By the way, *noAck=false* seems to propose that I want an
>     acknowledgment and
>      > not defer it...as *noAck=false* seems equivalent to *Ack=True* ??
>     please
>      > confirm ...
>
>     You are correct: noAck=false <=> Ack=true
>     _______________________________________________
>     rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>     rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
>     <mailto:rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com>
>     https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss