Thanks Emile. Will give that a try.<div><br></div><div>Btw, do you know why your reply doesn't show up on the web?</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Emile Joubert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:emile@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">emile@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,<br>
<br>
On 05/10/12 02:15, jgyllen wrote:<br>
> Or I'm wondering if the broker could do it, and if so, are<br>
> there any drawbacks?<br>
<br>
Nothing is set in stone about who must manage bindings. If you have a<br>
dedicated service separate from consumers that knows how to configure<br>
bindings then allow it to take that responsibility.<br>
<br>
Bear in mind that it is not possible to perform an unbind and a bind<br>
atomically, regardless of who manages the bindings. "Moving" a label<br>
might introduce to the tiny risk of messages being delivered to multiple<br>
queues or not being routed to any queue, depending on the order of the<br>
bind and unbind. The latter case can be detected if the publisher uses<br>
the mandatory flag:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.rabbitmq.com/amqp-0-9-1-reference.html#basic.publish.mandatory" target="_blank">http://www.rabbitmq.com/amqp-0-9-1-reference.html#basic.publish.mandatory</a><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-Emile<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Jacob Gyllenstierna<br><br><br>
</div>