[rabbitmq-discuss] 2.0: The Future of Pika
majek04 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 14 10:27:12 GMT 2011
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 23:12, Gavin M. Roy <gmr at myyearbook.com> wrote:
> The basic sentiment I've picked up on is that
> Callback Passing Style (CPS) is not currently in favor in the Python
It never has been. That's why Twisted is still perceived as a separate
library (as opposed to, for example EventMachine for ruby, which
often is treated as a core part of the ruby framework).
> The roadmap for changes to Pika 2.0:
> - Remove existing connection adapter system
> - Implement new pattern for use, behavior based use focused on
> both Asynchronous callback passing style and "Pythonic" development.
> - Both behaviors available from the same API calling same classes and
> - Async:
> - Merge existing connections into one connection system with IOLoop
> - Supporting internal IOLoop, tornado, twisted
> - Pythonic:
> - high-level blocking on synchronous AMQP commands
> - Generator for receiving messages from Basic.Publish
That's a quite interesting approach. But non-trivial python
generators are hard to compose. Beware.
> - API notation closer to AMQP spec for implementation.
> - *.*Ok frames will only be passed back in CPS use.
That means using 'no-wait' whenever possible.
But what if the thing will crash a channel
(trigger an amqp channel-error). How would you notify
a user that the channel can't be used any more?
For example: queue.unbind() with bad parameters may
trigger a channel-wide NotFound error.
> I am looking for feedback on this direction. Do these changes and the
> example make sense to existing Pika and RabbitMQ uses? Would you change
> anything about this direction? What would you improve?
You may find this inspiring:
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss