[rabbitmq-discuss] Federated queues with durable topic subscriptions over STOMP and ACLs

Michael Klishin mklishin at gopivotal.com
Fri Apr 18 11:03:45 BST 2014

On 18 April 2014 at 13:57:41, Nagy, Attila (bra at fsn.hu) wrote:

Please keep rabbitmq-discuss on CC. 

> > What I'm trying to ask (sorry if I can't describe it properly)  
> is:
> wouldn't it work if the STOMP adapter would check the exchange's  
> type
> when evaluating the subscription and if it's a topic and persistent  
> is
> true, it would do the same:
> bind a named queue to the exchange (here, a custom exchange, not  
> an
> amq.*) with the routing key specified.

Perhaps that could work but it may be too specific a use case to
make STOMP plugin work like that. Plus it will take a while for
a new version to come out (a few months).

> > What you need is a layer (exchanges) to enforce ACL. From there  
> messages
> > should be routed exactly the same as STOMP plugin with durable  
> subscriptions
> > would route them, that’s why I recommended fanout exchanges  
> and e2e: this is
> > a way to make messages flowing into N exchanges to be routed to  
> amq.topic
> Which may solve my problem on the publisher side if I got it right,  
> but
> what happens on the consumer side?
> I think I still need to give configure rights to them onto amq.topic  
> to
> make the binding.

As far as I understand your problem only exists on the publisher side?
Nothing changes for the consumer. If you need to have ACL for consumers, too,
given you know queue names upfront you can use the features described on


Software Engineer, Pivotal/RabbitMQ

More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list