[rabbitmq-discuss] request for help!

Tue May 11 10:01:56 BST 2010

> On 05/06/2010 05:12 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Gordon Sim<gsim at redhat.com>  wrote:
>>> I would expect an implementation to define policy around where links
>>> with these two types of distribution mode can be used. E.g. a pub-sub
>>> topic might only allow non-destructive links were valid, a plain queue
>>> might only allow destructive links and a browsable queue might allow
>>> both (with what I think are then obvious if non-deterministic
>>> implications for concurrent links with different modes).
 >>>
>> Is there any use case where 'destructive' or 'non destructive'
>> behaviour should be a property of the LINK rather than the NODE?
> 
> Browsing a queue (you would want to allow consumers and browsers, though 
> most likely at different times).

Actually in some sense it should be in both -- the source of 
disagreement, as I see it, is that "distribution mode" is used both for 
distinguishing between "all-matching" (e.g., exchanges) and 
"one-matching" (e.g., queues), and for distinguishing between 
enumerating through messages and actively acquiring them.

The first distinction really belongs in the node, and the second, 
arguably, in the link (or possibly in flow controls, but I imagine Rob 
and Rafi will have already chased that idea down).

Michael.