[rabbitmq-discuss] anyone using Twisted?
holger at wizards.de
Sun Aug 24 20:19:38 BST 2008
Matthias Radestock wrote:
> What's wrong with having multiple logical (and thus TCP) connections?
Nothing, except that each app would have to write this over and over
again, so I was wondering if something like a MultiSocketConnectionFactory
could return a connection that uses multiple sockets under the hood (I'm
looking at this purely with an eye on the Java client since that is what I
use for experiments). Then channels could be "bound" to one of the
internal sockets depending on their "priority class" or whatever we call it.
However after spending some time with the 0.10 spec this afternoon I think
all this will be better solved on the framing level.
> Does your application depend on having a single logical connection? I'd
No, I was just thinking out loud.
> The broker does a reasonably good job of treating channels fairly. Large
> messages will be split across multiple frames, allowing smaller messages
> from other channels to be interleaved.
Yes, that dawned on me just as your mail arrived..probably because each
channel has its own process and gets a fair share for writing. That solves
the problem for the broker, which is good..but leaves the client libs,
which is complicated but probably also not very important for now.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss