[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq

Mon Jan 5 23:45:42 GMT 2009

>> True, but a system as a whole needs to be able to rely on the semantics 
>> of an exchange and the lifecycle of the queue. I think what confuses me 
>> is the notion of a queue vanishing due to some unspecified error, and I 
>> would feel very uncomfortable having the broker simply continue without 
>> signaling that potentially catastrophic violation of the specified 
>> semantics of a broker.

Sorry if I haven't followed the thread closely enough, but do I 
understand correctly that what you are discussing is atomicity guarantee 
in the case where there is a bug in the broker implementation?

I would say you have no guarantees whatsoever if there is a bug in the code.

Martin