[rabbitmq-discuss] rabbitmq dying

[Ben Hood]

Dave,

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:06 AM,  <David.Corcoran at edftrading.com> wrote:
> Yeah, we could be polite to our clients and let them shutdown nicely but
> because they're stateless we've always done it this way. If the patch isn't
> available in time I can have a look into it.

That's a fair point. Based on this there may be a few things to consider:

1. Us adding a JVM shutdown hook to the java client to catch this kind
of thing and observe the protocol shutdown procedure. This would mean
you sending the JVM a friendlier signal than -9 :-)
2. Even though your clients are stateless, from a performance
perspective you may want to consider reusing the same AMQP channel
across message sends. Setting up each channel and the associated AMQP
handshake *may* be unnecessary overhead. It is after all a connection
orientated protocol :-)

HTH,

Ben