[rabbitmq-discuss] Unexaplainable behaviour with shovel plugin.
mcintoshj at gmail.com
Tue Mar 4 19:21:33 GMT 2014
The big thing for us was it was a push vs. pull mechanism. In a
distributed system, where we have a lot of nodes talking to an enterprise,
it's much more efficient to have the nodes shovel to the enterprise than to
have to have the enterprise have to know about every server connected to
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Simon MacMullen <simon at rabbitmq.com> wrote:
> On 28/02/2014 6:14PM, Ben Hood wrote:
>> Using federation to implement an AMQP gateway seems like a common
>> pattern. One wonders why it didn't go into the AMQP spec ....
> I dunno, I think federation is really quite specific (I don't think there
> are any other brokers which do it in the same way as RabbitMQ) - I can see
> the spec authors not wanting to predict how people will want to federate.
> Initially I had thought that the 'new' federation replaced the 'old'
>>> but this is not true - each tool has its place although their
>>> With easier configuration in 3.3, the lowly shovel may get its due!
>> It's interesting to see that the shovel still lives on, despite it
>> being quite an agricultural component.
> I think the concept ("I just want to move the damn messages!") makes a lot
> of sense.
> If I were creating RabbitMQ from scratch, I might rename the shovel to
> something like "point-to-point federation" to make it a bit clearer that it
> complements federation rather than being replaced by it.
> Cheers, Simon
> Simon MacMullen
> RabbitMQ, Pivotal
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss