On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Erich <[email protected]> wrote: > In case you haven't come across it yet, beanstalk is mentioned in > this: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Message_Queue_Evaluation_Notes > page. It's been making the rounds at link site (hn, reddit etc). Most > of the stuff they say is reasonably accurate, however they completely > ignored half of the python clients in their eval, and a few other > blatant inaccuracies. ...
That's interesting. Yeah, it seems like they didn't put a whole lot of effort into their look at beanstalk. > The thing that gets me tho, is that beanstalk was even included in > that discussion. The article is about messaging (MoM/(enterprise) > message busses/ message queues), not about jobs. I can understand where the confusion arises. The two services are pretty similar in most ways. Personally, I'm fine with it if people want to use beanstalkd as a message bus. I'm even willing to make changes to help out that use case as long as they don't impair beanstalkd's central function as a work queue. Besides, it's arguably just semantics. You could view "delivery of a message" as a job to do, making messaging a subset of work queues. :) > ... > Anyway, rambling aside, I am wondering if maybe the description of > beanstalk should change on the site to indicate it is a distributed > fifo instead of a second rate message bus. We could just explicitly mention that it's designed as a work queue, not a message bus, though of course people are free to use (or abuse) it any way they wish. kr --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "beanstalk-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/beanstalk-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
