[rabbitmq-discuss] Any message priority support schedule?
joneholland at gmail.com
Mon Jan 13 16:05:09 GMT 2014
Personally, I find the concept of a FIFO queue and message priorities in
conflict, and it leads towards brittle overall architecture. I blame JMS
for introducing this group-think into so many EA's heads.
Why do you need message priorities? Perhaps we can discuss your use case
and see if it necessary at all.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Chris <stuff at moesel.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the update. In our use case, we potentially have hundreds of
> queues. While we could multiply by the # of priorities, it would be a lot
> cleaner if we didn't have too. It would also prevent us from having to
> modify all of our consumers to deal with multiple priority queues.
> I think that true priorities would make the queue topology a lot simpler
> (and smaller) and the consumer implementation a lot simpler as well. It
> would also allow a smoother transition to RabbitMQ for those already using
> priorities in other AMQP brokers (like Qpid) or JMS brokers (like
> ActiveMQ). IMHO, it's surprising that more people aren't asking for this,
> but I guess it is what it is.
> Thanks (as always) for the response and suggestions!
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Michael Klishin <mklishin at gopivotal.com>wrote:
>> On 13 Jan 2014, at 18:42, Michael Klishin <mklishin at gopivotal.com> wrote:
>> > …and give different priorities to consumers on those queues:
>> > http://www.rabbitmq.com/consumer-priority.html
>> Actually, this is incorrect, consumer priorities assume a shared queue.
>> Software Engineer, Pivotal/RabbitMQ
>> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss