[rabbitmq-discuss] is anybody using tx?

Mon Jun 27 16:33:47 BST 2011

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Matthias Radestock
<matthias at rabbitmq.com>wrote:

> What use, if any, are RabbitMQ users finding for AMQP's tx class?
>
> The predominant application of tx we have seen in the past is as a means
> for the client to ensure that the server has accepted responsibility for a
> published message (or, conversely, be told of any failure to do so).
> Publisher confirms, which we introduced in 2.3.0, handle this much better. I
> suppose there might be still be users that haven't switched from 'tx' to
> 'confirm'. If so I'd like to know what is holding you back.
>
> What else are people using tx for with RabbitMQ? And what aspects of tx
> semantics are you relying on? (Note, for example, that the tx specified in
> AMQP 0-9-1 is very limited. For example, atomicity is not guaranteed for
> transactions affecting more than one queue.)
>
> Our current thinking is that tx, as it stands, is of very limited utility
> and that we are probably better off without it - it adds significant code
> complexity, slows down implementation of new features and is generally
> curtailing the evolution of RabbitMQ.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matthias.
>
>
I do not have high throughput requirements. But I do have reasonably strong
"never lose a message" requirements. For this I use durable queues and
persitant messages. And I use tx to tell the producer that the message has
been persisted.

I haven't yet looked at confirm.

Robby
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20110627/fe9c2610/attachment-0001.htm>