[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq

[Matthias Radestock]

Gordon Sim wrote:
> Matthias Radestock wrote:
>> Perhaps, but who should this condition be signalled to? I'd argue the 
>> *consumers* should be told about it. After all, the queue may vanish 
>> long after anyone has published a message to it. Conversely, if nobody 
>> ever tries to consume messages from the queue then the fact that it 
>> once existed and then vanished is of little interest to anybody.
> 
> Notifying consumers is all well and good. However there may not be any 
> consumers at the point the message is published. An important role of 
> the queue is to accept responsibility for the message from the 
> publishing client until that can be transfered onto the receiving client.

In the non-tx case, how does a publisher know when the server has 
accepted responsibility?

> The whole concept of the queue vanishing is a bit alien to me and seems 
> to make reasoning about reliability more difficult.

RabbitMQ tries to isolate failures, in order to make the system more 
reliable overall. What's the alternative? Bring down the entire server 
every time something unexpected happens?


Matthias.