[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq
gsim at redhat.com
Tue Jan 6 10:02:25 GMT 2009
Martin Sustrik wrote:
>>> 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?
No, not really. We have gone off on something of a tangent here,
discussing the notion of a queue disappearing from a broker due to some
bug, without it being deleted due to explicit request (or cancellation
of last subscriber in the case of an auto-deleted queue).
> I would say you have no guarantees whatsoever if there is a bug in the
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss