<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Matthias Radestock <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthias@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">matthias@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">David,<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 18/07/13 20:43, David van Geest wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
With Rabbit's Exchange-to-Exchange bindings<br>
(<a href="http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2010/10/19/exchange-to-exchange-bindings/" target="_blank">http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/<u></u>2010/10/19/exchange-to-<u></u>exchange-bindings/</a>),<br>
it seems that MQTT messages could first go to a topic exchange, and<br>
then based on exchange-to-exchange bindings, be routed to a custom<br>
exchange (such as the random one above).<br>
<br>
Any reason this wouldn't work? �Am I really off in the weeds?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
That should work just fine. Give it a try.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br></font></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Matthias, thanks for the reply. �</div><div><br></div><div>My preference is going to be just using straight AMQP without MQTT, so if we can get that going on our embedded client I don't think I'll go down this path too far. I'm a little concerned about the performance implications of throwing two layers (the MQTT adapter and a topic exchange) in front of what I really want, which is the random exchange. �Everything I've read suggests that topic exchanges are the slowest type (correct me if I'm wrong here).</div>
<div><br></div><div>I will post back if we end up giving this a try.</div></div>
</div></div>