On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:07 +0100, Robert Greig wrote: > 2008/6/5 Arnaud Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > If it also applies to receive(), and that's my interpretation, we can > > ack pseudo-asynchronously i.e. the next message transfer could carry an > > ack flag confirming that the broker has received the previous message > > acknowledgment. So we don't have to block on the ack before delivering > > the message to the receiver. Note that when the client lib is > > pre-fetching messages we only need to deliver the next message after the > > sync ack of the previous message has returned. > > Given that 99% of the time people will be using prefetch is it even > worth bothering with piggybacking the ack flag on the next message > delivery? ie. you are going to have to sync nearly all the time. > > RG
That's exactly what I said, When messages are pre-fetched we only need to deliver the next message after the previous sync operation has returned. In other words *receive* may block on the previous sync operation. Arnaud
