no specific backing ticket (it should), and
historically there haven't been many eyes on RabbitMq PRs.
Thanks,
-Danny
On 11/14/19 4:13 PM, Jan Lukavský wrote:
On 11/14/19 9:50 PM, Daniel Robert wrote:
Alright, thanks everybody. I'm really appreciative of the
conversation here. I think I see where
, Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 8:26 PM Daniel Robert <mailto:daniel.rob...@acm.org>> wrote:
I believe I've nailed down a situation that happens in practice
that causes Beam and Rabbit to be incompatible. It seems that
runners can and do make as
lerant
semantics.
[1] https://www.rabbitmq.com/consumers.html#consumer-lifecycle
Dne 14. 11. 2019 13:06 napsal uživatel Daniel Robert
:
On 11/14/19 2:32 AM, Jan Lukavský wrote:
Hi Danny,
as Eugene pointed out, there are essentially two "modes of
o
rry if I'm not using 100% correct RabbitMQ
terminology as I said, I'm not quite familiar with it.
Best,
Jan
On 11/14/19 5:26 AM, Daniel Robert wrote:
I believe I've nailed down a situation that happens in practice that
causes Beam and Rabbit to be incompatible. It seems that runners can
a
gn option we came up with (not for lack of trying, but
suggestions very much welcome - AFAIK nobody is happy with it).
RabbitMQ is under #2 - it can't do serializable checkpoint marks, but
it can do acks. So you can simply ignore the non-serializability.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 12:07 PM Daniel Rober
how to bridge the
re-usable/serializable CheckpointMark requirement in Beam with
this
limitation of Rabbit.
Thanks,
-Daniel Robert
,
-Daniel Robert
, is the general
approach before opening a PR to ask some preliminary questions in this
email list?
Thank you,
-Daniel Robert
