[rabbitmq-discuss] Message Aggregating Queue

[Alvaro Videla]

Alexis,

Going back to my mail, do you think is a good idea to specify backing queue implementation during 'queue.declare'?

-Alvaro


On Apr 28, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Jason Zaugg <jzaugg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I would feel more comfortable knowing that the number of messages in
>> the broker is naturally bounded, even if the consumer misbehaves. It
>> would also be nice to have the possibility to have a pool of consumers
>> processing from a single queue, be able to restart the consumers
>> without losing unprocessed messages etc. Anyway, we should discuss
>> this some more internally; as always these sort of cats are amenable
>> to being skinned in multitude of ways :)
> 
> Correct - I would not overload that onto your LVC question.
> 
> alexis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> Only if you can process the data (ticks) independently from each other
>>> it makes sense to have this filtering on the broker because then it
>>> would be useful for a cluster of consumers apps processing the data.
>>> But 9 out of 10 times you need the ticks of more than one instrument
>>> to do your business logic so you'd already keep a cache with the last
>>> values anyway.
>> 
>>> Still there could be other usecases of course where having this
>>> functionality at the broker can be really useful and powerful.
>> 
>>> /2cents
>> 
>> And well worth both of them :)
>> 
>> -jason
>> 

Sent form my Nokia 1100