<p>Gene</p>
<p>Would publisher confirms help? See our blog</p>
<p>Alexis<br>
</p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">On Apr 28, 2011 7:01 PM, "Gene Campbell" <<a href="mailto:ristretto.rb@gmail.com">ristretto.rb@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>Thank you for the response. Great one for a FAQ. The confirmation of batching and compression not being in Shovel is something we until now we couldn't confirm. (Therefore it's usefulness to us just dropped a bit.)<br>
<br>The value of being able to ACK back fast, and let a client continue on, while giving some comfort going forward that the message will actually be consumed somewhere after some length of time. For example, if you can stand 1 minute of latency from publish to consume, but you're client needs an ACK, it will need to store potentially large amounts of data (if your link goes down) until it gets the ACK (link comes back up and message consumed.) With shovel, it can get a quicker ACK.<br>
<br>Thanks<br>Gene<p><font color="#500050">
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Matthew Sackman <<a href="mailto:matthew@rabbitmq.com">matthew@rabbitmq.com</a>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun,...</font></p><br>_______________________________________________<br>
rabbitmq-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com">rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></p>