[rabbitmq-discuss] Claim on new ocamlmq broker...

Matthew Sackman matthew at rabbitmq.com
Tue Jun 15 11:07:17 BST 2010

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 04:37:03PM -0700, mfp wrote:
> I do not have anything to object to this either; we are in full agreement.
> ocamlmq is just a simple task queue / IPC system I wrote to satisfy my own
> requirements (which I was unable to do with RabbitMQ + its STOMP adapter)
> and is by no means a general purpose messaging system like RabbitMQ.

Sure, that's understandable. I have almost no knowledge myself of STOMP
- our STOMP adapter was written by TonyG and is largely unloved. If
STOMP does give publisher acks, then it's possible that the adapter is
not using AMQP transactions, and thus the publisher ack does not
indicate any sort of reliability concerns. That said, I was also under
the impression that STOMP quite deliberately has no semantics
whatsoever - if this is the case then it would seem to be completely
legitimate to issue the publisher ACK without using a transaction.


More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list