[rabbitmq-discuss] Passive versus active declaration of exchanges and queues
tonyg at lshift.net
Thu Jul 1 02:55:56 BST 2010
Irmo Manie wrote:
> This does makes sense, so in theory, when wanting a passive declaration
> over active, you would first try passive and then active.
Well, another way of looking at it is to try active first, and never use
passive :-) It will succeed if everything is copacetic, and otherwise it will
close the channel with an error. Adding the call to passive doesn't actually
buy you anything.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss