On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:35:31AM +0100, James Strachan wrote: > > It's a good point, however this isn't the case we are worrying about for > > now, > > we are just trying to prove the concept. If the consumer did not send the > > acknowledgement, will the broker not route another messages to that > > consumer? > > Yes - assuming the consumer closes or the process dies. If a valid > consumer just sits there and never acks (assuming you're not using > AUTO_ACK mode) then the broker will just assume your consumer is > taking a long time to process the message (which is valid in many > circumstances).
Perfect! Thank you! > Though if you use temporary queues for all communication after the > first message to the consumer - then there is no failover if a > consumer dies - the whole conversation is dropped as the temporary > queue is deleted when the consumer goes away; but then I think thats > what you want. > > i.e. reliable load balancing of the first incoming message - from that > point on the rest of the conversation takes place on a temporary > queue. If the consumer dies the client has to restart the conversation > again. Okay, thank you for the information, it was really helpful and we got some things to think about and consider for finding a workaround later :) -- Eugene N Dzhurinsky
pgpV1B8Poo0hu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
