[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq
sustrik at imatix.com
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.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss