[rabbitmq-discuss] Transactions in AMQP

[Carl Trieloff]

In 0-10 AMQP has full DTX and TX. we assume a reliable transport. AMQP 
does not yet have a UDP transport so the behavior for UDP is undefined, 
especially with txn. Any UDP L1 AMQP binding would need frame 
reliability to be able to support txns (we could do this, but it is 
currently unspecified.)

Arnuad Simon, Mark Little, Gordon Sim drove most of the transaction work 
with Cisco. I can connect you with Arnuad directly if you like. In terms 
of txns spanning queue.declare etc, the spec supports/makes that possible.

dtx for 0-10 is here https://jira.amqp.org/jira/browse/AMQP-4
tx is existing in the spec docs.

"2. Is the protocol currently assuming a reliable transport layer (TCP, 
SCTP, etc) and no unreliable connection (say, UDP)? If yes, will the 
later releases work on including unreliable transport layer protocols""

-- > we have framework that will allow us to make UDP reliable, this 
work has not been done in the spec(provision has been made so it can be 
done), but if done then we 'should' be able to support txns on UDP.

Do you have an interest in UDP, and if so why?


Hope that helps
Carl.


Goel, Tanmay wrote:
>
>  
>
> Hi,
>
>  
>
> 1. I have a basic question about transactions in AMQP. What exactly 
> does a transaction include/mean? For example, does it include the 
> administrative features like creation of queues, exchanges, etc that 
> will be auto-deleted if the client aborts the transaction. I'm not 
> entirely clear about this, so I'm just trying to understand and figure 
> out possibilities. The spec says that messages and acknowledgments are 
> covered in a transaction. What would happen if the publisher sends a 
> message to the broker/queue, consumer receives (reads it from the 
> queue) and processes it, sends an ack to the broker and then the 
> publisher decides to abort the transaction? How can this transaction 
> be atomic and/or rolled-back since the message is already gone?
>
>  
>
> Please help me understand this. I'm trying to understand the scope of 
> a transaction.
>
>  
>
> 2. Is the protocol currently assuming a reliable transport layer (TCP, 
> SCTP, etc) and no unreliable connection (say, UDP)? If yes, will the 
> later releases work on including unreliable transport layer protocols?
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
>  
>
> Tanmay
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20070828/17cda450/attachment.htm