On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 11:25 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote: > FWIW I tend to think using subscribe in that way is really a bit of an > anti-pattern because it imposes a strict ordering requirement on the > startup sequence of the various distributed components in the system. To be > specific, you always have to start the broker first, the subscriber second, > and the publisher third. In any real system this is almost never going to > be possible to guarantee. The order will most likely be completely random, > and ideally you should get exactly the same result regardless. > > I can't speak to Alan's particular case without more detail, but I think in > general it would be most useful for users if we could define broker/client > behaviour such that it is robust to randomized startup order.
You hit the nail on the head - my case is exactly testing a messenger +router+broker scenario which doesn't work unless you set things up in the right order. I agree we want to fix the behavior so we can be robust to different start-up orders in the long term. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
