[rabbitmq-discuss] Fwd: question on the faq

Tue Jan 6 12:26:42 GMT 2009

Gordon,

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Gordon Sim <gsim at redhat.com> wrote:
> Alexis Richardson wrote:
>
> My view is that transaction in AMQP means the same as it does in other
> messaging systems e.g. JMS. Specifically in my view full atomicity is at the
> very heart of its purpose.

I do believe that to be the intent -- if we can make this unambiguous
then I shall certainly change my opinion on the potential for people
to draw alternative conclusions from the intent.

Moreover, I would love to see something both unambiguous and
well-behaved here.  Suggestions welcome - from all and sundry!

> That the original text failed to convey this unambiguously is unfortunate.

+1

> It is this lack of clarity in the specification that I believe is unhelpful,
> not the use of the word 'transaction', as the intended semantics are very
> much transactional in the traditional sense of that word and other
> implementations do provide that guarantee.

Yes - I agree in the sense that it would be great if the written
semantics unambiguously aligned with the intent.

a