[rabbitmq-discuss] Exchange and queue naming conventions

[Bill Moseley]

Are there any good conventions to follow when naming queues, exchanges, and
bindings?  As I'm adding more queues I'm starting to think some type of
naming convention would be very smart.  Just curious what other's do.

For now I'm only using a direct exchange type.  When should I be declaring
additional exchanges vs. using the same (or even the default) exchange?

A pattern I'm seeing is I have an app-specific producer than sends a message
to a generic consumer (used by multiple apps) but then that consumer sends a
message to another app-specific consumer.  What I'm doing is passing the
return queue name in the reply_to attribute.  I'm not passing in the
exchange name -- so I'm just using the same exchange for every binding.

I also declare the exchange, queue, and binding in every component (the
producer and both consumers).  I assume that's typical as it allows starting
the components in any order.  Is that appropriate?

Finally, I have been naming queue and bindings with the same name.  Is there
a reason that should not be done?

Thanks,

-- 
Bill Moseley
moseley at hank.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20110123/5fe02421/attachment-0001.htm>