<div dir="ltr"><div style>Whoops, replied back to Simon instead of the list.</div><div><br></div><div>I have a policy of "^amq\." with federation-upstream-set: all, isn't that federating the random exchanges already?</div>
<div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I'm not clear what you mean by "any exchange which will only route to one consumer". Are you suggesting that the code route the message to a desired consumer, instead of taking advantage of rabbitmq itself?</span><div class="" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Simon MacMullen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">simon@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 05/06/13 21:03, Pete Emerson wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
When I send a message to my federated exchange, two workers (one in each<br>
cluster) gets the message.<br>
<br>
What do I need to do in order to have only one worker get the message,<br>
instead of one per federation?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Federation is currently a poor fit for worker queues since you can only federate exchanges; federating an exchange means that messages published to that exchange can be consumed in all locations.<br>
<br>
You might be able to rig something up by federating the random or consistent hash exchanges, any exchange which will only route to one consumer.<br>
<br>
We are working on implementing federated queues, which will hopefully be the correct solution for your problem.<br>
<br>
Cheers, Simon<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Simon MacMullen<br>
RabbitMQ, Pivotal<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>