On 28 April 2011 10:32, Alvaro Videla <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:videlalvaro@gmail.com">videlalvaro@gmail.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;">
do you think is a good idea to specify backing queue implementation during 'queue.declare'?<br></blockquote><div><br>It seems to me like it's <i>very</i> clearly the Right Thing to do.<br><br>Exchanges and queues are similar in a lot of ways; in particular, they can be seen as special cases of a more general kind of lump of functionality, so being able to specify exchange types is a clue that being able to specify queue types might also be useful.<br>
<br>More generally, AMQP in some sense wants to be a model of a named-soup-of-objects-in-the-broker (hence AMQP 1.0's approach, as I understand it), so from this point of view having named classes (fanout exchange, direct exchange, queue-backed-by-rabbit, queue-backed-by-riak, etc) and as generic a factory/constructor method as possible (in 0-9-1 unavoidably split into at least exchange.declare and queue.declare) makes a fair bit of sense.<br>
<br>Regards,<br>� Tony<br><br></div></div>