<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">On 21 Oct 2013, at 20:52, Chris <<a href="mailto:stuff@moesel.net">stuff@moesel.net</a>> wrote:</span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">
<div><ul><li>If x-message-ttl is set to 0 on the queue, then what <i>should be</i> a message-specific option now effects every message on the queue. This isn't acceptable for us.</li></ul></div></div></div></blockquote><div>That's only true for per queue TTL - you can still set per message TTL instead.</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><ul><li>If expiration is set to 0 on a message, the message will not be dead-lettered until it gets to the head of the queue (which could be a <i>long</i> time).</li></ul></div></div></div></blockquote><div>This however, is true. It's not clear that we could expire messages that aren't at the head of the queue whilst maintaining acceptable levels of per queue throughput, which is why that behaviour remains ATM.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Question #2: Has there been any thought to supporting "immediate" again? Or is it definitely a thing of the past?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There aren't any plans to reintroduce it at the moment.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Tim</div></body></html>