[rabbitmq-discuss] RFC - new exchange type idea
mikeb at rabbitmq.com
Wed Apr 11 14:39:01 BST 2012
On 04/11/2012 02:32 PM, Alvaro Videla wrote:
> I think knowing that every queue is bound to the anon exchange using the
> queue name as binding key is not what every user of RabbitMQ knows. It's
> more something you learn after you been using RabbitMQ for a while.
> In the case of the exchange I propose the only thing you need to know is
> that there exists this other "type of exchange" that lets you do things
> "this and that" way. So you declare that exchange and publish to it.
I don't know why you need a new kind of exchange for this -- isn't it
more to do with how the "anonymous exchange" wart is exposed in APIs?
For example, node-amqp has a `Connection#publish(queue, msg)`.
> Actually some weeks ago there was a guy on twitter ranting that RabbitMQ
> is not reliable:
> https://twitter.com/#!/davekincaid/status/184725072848764928 so whether
> he's right or not (I replied to him, Alexis did as well) his rant got me
> thinking on how to provide something easier for those kinds of users.
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Simon MacMullen <simon at rabbitmq.com
> <mailto:simon at rabbitmq.com>> wrote:
> On 11/04/12 14:13, Alvaro Videla wrote:
> BTW, I know you can publish messages to the anon exchange by
> using the
> queue name as routing key, but this requires that particular
> of AMQP.
> Sorry, I don't get this argument - won't your hypothetical exchange
> also require knowledge of AMQP? What is the benefit?
> Cheers, Simon
> Simon MacMullen
> RabbitMQ, VMware
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss