[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq
tim+rabbitmq.com at coote.org
Mon Jan 5 12:36:45 GMT 2009
I'm not sure that I like the wikipedia article as much as I like the
work of Jim Gray and Andreas Reuter mentioned in its references.
Their book has many examples of the practical value of ACID on real
software development. I've got others. Mostly the value comes from
not having application programmers try to fix errors that they
misunderstand, leading to increased cost and decreased quality and
your description implies to me that RabbitMQ message delivery cannot
be Atomic, even at the single message level, let alone defining units
of work that span messages.
Shame. Promising that it's even been discussed tho'. I'll see if I
can find the spec that you refer to.
On 5 Jan 2009, at 11:35, Gordon Sim wrote:
> Alexis Richardson wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Tim Coote <tim+rabbitmq.com at coote.org
>> > wrote:
>>> A neophyte's question:
>>> The faq includes 'is rabbitmq transactional?'
>>> The answer is 'yes' and then says that it has atomicity and
>>> guarantees. What about Isolation and consistency?
>> There are senses in which AMQP, and RabbitMQ, behaviour can be
>> described as ACID, following the wikipedia definition:
> In recent discussions on improving the text for the tx 'class' in
> the 0-9-1 spec there appeared to be some disagreement around the
> atomicity guarantee.
> In particular, I understood from comments by members of the RabbitMQ
> team that though effects of all contained (publish and ack)
> operations are visible if the the commit is successful, RabbitMQ
> does not guarantee that none of them would be visible in the event
> of a failure.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss