[rabbitmq-discuss] Zombie direct exchanges
andrea.rosa at hp.com
Mon Dec 5 13:45:25 GMT 2011
> So why not have server A declare temp_queueA, have it send that queue's
> name in the reply-to header, then have server B publish the message to
> temp_queueA via the default exchange? That's the usual pattern, it's
> quite a bit simpler, and I don't see what lots of extra exchanges is
> buying you.
Unfortunately I didn't participate to the original design of the system so I don't know which is the underlying idea.
We can have a lot of temporary queues (like temp_queueA) and a lot of messages at the same time to have a single exchange (the default one) to deliver those messages could not be a bottleneck ?
So maybe the original idea was to design the RPC using separate exchanges for having more scalability?
I don't know it's just speculation.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss