[rabbitmq-discuss] [PATCH] Add exclusive queue support to stomp adaptor

Tue Mar 27 16:36:44 BST 2012

Dear Jeff,

Now that I understand this (thanks Tony) I can see your patch is
appropriate.

I would want to understand the header 'exclusive' you propose is OK.
If activemq uses this header and it means the same thing there, then
I am satisfied.

If you specify exclusive:true on the SUBSCRIBE frame, then the
subscription will only be created if there are no other Consumers for
that queue. (Hold on, there may not be a queue; but yes, there is always
some queue; and yes, exclusive need not have any force for all cases, but
it seems OK in those cases. As you were.)

If there is another consumer/subscriber (anywhere) then we will send
an ERROR frame back, and the subscription is not created.

I have raised a bug (24832) for this.

Steve Powell  (a happy bunny)
----------some more definitions from the SPD----------
chinchilla (n.) Cooling device for the lower jaw.
socialcast (n.) Someone to whom everyone is speaking but nobody likes.
literacy (n.) A textually transmitted disease usually contracted in childhood.

On 27 Mar 2012, at 11:32, Steve Powell wrote:

> Yup, I missed that (I did say IDKE).  Thanks.
> 
> Steve Powell  (a happy bunny)
> ----------some more definitions from the SPD----------
> chinchilla (n.) Cooling device for the lower jaw.
> socialcast (n.) Someone to whom everyone is speaking but nobody likes.
> literacy (n.) A textually transmitted disease usually contracted in childhood.
> 
> On 26 Mar 2012, at 17:26, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jeff,
>> 
>> Ah! I hadn't actually seen the patch, but I just went hunting through the archives to find the root of this thread. Yep.
>> 
>> Steve, am I right in thinking your objections apply to the "exclusive" argument to queue.declare, rather than that to basic.consume? It seems to me that supporting "exclusive" for basic.consume would be a useful addition to the STOMP adapter.
>> 
>> Regards,
>>  Tony
>> 
>> 
>> On 26 March 2012 11:39, Jeff <jeff at jefftrout.com> wrote: 
>> ...  
>> 
>>> You're probably looking for the "exclusive" argument to *basic.consume* rather than queue.declare.
>> 
>> Yep - that is what this patch does - it allows us to pass in the exclusive argument to basic.consume in the stomp wrapper (it was previous hardcoded to be false)
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tony Garnock-Jones
>> tonygarnockjones at gmail.com
>> http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss