<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/6/18 Tim Watson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tim@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">tim@rabbitmq.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
And message ordering between threads sharing that channel doesn't matter, presumably?</blockquote></div><br>Good point.<br><br clear="all"><div>Sharing channels between threads that publish is generally a bad idea: most clients don't offer synchronization and frames may get interleaved in</div>
<div>an incorrect way. So for N publishers, you need N channels.</div><div><br></div><div>Sharing channels between threads that consume may be safe but it really depends on whether you need message processing order guarantees</div>
<div>and if any of the consumers share a queue.</div>-- <br>MK<br><br><a href="http://github.com/michaelklishin" target="_blank">http://github.com/michaelklishin</a><br><a href="http://twitter.com/michaelklishin" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/michaelklishin</a><br>
</div></div>