<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, David Wragg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david@rabbitmq.com">david@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi Bill,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Bill Moseley <<a href="mailto:moseley@hank.org">moseley@hank.org</a>> writes:<br>
> Are there any good conventions to follow when naming queues, exchanges, and<br>
> bindings? �As I'm adding more queues I'm starting to think some type of<br>
> naming convention would be very smart. �Just curious what other's do.<br>
<br>
</div>I don't think there is any one right way. �When choosing names for<br>
queues, exchanges, and keys, the use of dotted paths is widespread. �But<br>
your questions are more about usage than naming.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hi David,</div><div><br></div><div>I do think it makes sense to use the dotted notation, and then use topic queues as that makes for very flexible routing options. �I was wondering if anyone had worked out some "best practices" over time that would be useful as we start to add more tasks.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm trying to break up some of our existing processes that are very tightly coupled - the workers know quite a bit about the producers. �For example, a worker might be configured to handle just one application in "QA" mode, and another in "production" mode. �And likewise, the producer (in our current system) must know where to send the message ("I'm in QA mode so I need to send to the QA worker").</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, as an example I'm wondering about schemes where an app might use a routing key of "app1.qa.rotate_image" which would allow us to configure consumers that handles all image rotation for all apps and all modes, or separate consumers based on the mode.</div>
<div><br></div><div>BTW -- in that case can I configure binding for three queues: �*.qa.rotate_image. *.production.rotate_image, and then a third for all except "qa" a and "production"?</div><div><br>
</div>
<div><br></div><div>Finally, I'm still a bit confused when to create new exchanges (assuming all the same type). �Just trying to get some basic guidelines. �Is there any overhead with using more exchanges vs. just more bindings on the same exchange? �Is is common to use separate exchanges for grouping consumers (i.e. an exchange for report queues and another exchange for image manipulation queues)?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks very much for your help,</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>-- <br>Bill Moseley<br><a href="mailto:moseley@hank.org" target="_blank">moseley@hank.org</a><br>