On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matthias Radestock <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthias@rabbitmq.com">matthias@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Dan Di Spaltro wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Tony Garnock-Jones <<a href="mailto:tonyg@lshift.net">tonyg@lshift.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>> if only it were a per *queue* ttl, it'd be so much easier!<br>
> ttl's on a queue level would be very useful to us<br>
<br>
That's a really interesting idea, and it is a lot easier to implement<br>
than per-message TTLs.<br>
<br>
So here is a question to all RabbitMQ users who have been asking /<br>
secretly wishing for TTLs: Would per-queue TTLs, i.e. all messages<br>
getting the same TTL when they are enqueued, be good enough (or even<br>
preferable) for you? Or do you definitely need to be able to specify<br>
TTLs on per-message basis (and if so, what is the use case)?<br><br></blockquote><div><br>We'd find per-queue TTLs very useful.<br><br>Bryan <br></div></div>