In the case of dynamically adding and removing exchanges, doesn't this mean that there is a race condition between an exchange being removed, and all clients knowing about it? If you required all clients to have to acknowledge an exchanged-removed message on some other queue before you could actually remove the exchange, then wouldn't you open yourself up to denial attacks by mis-behaved clients?
Sincerely, jw -- Americans might object: there is no way we would sacrifice our living standards for the benefit of people in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, whether we get there willingly or not, we shall soon have lower consumption rates, because our present rates are unsustainable. On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/12/2010 03:47 AM, Jason Jones wrote: > >> I have a question about sending messages. I found that if I attempt to >> send a message to a non-existent exchange from a session the session >> throws an exception and I am then unable to send any other messages >> through the same session, even if I am sending to another exchange that >> does exist. What I'd like to know is whether this is normal? Is there >> something I can do so that the session can somehow recover from this? >> This isn't necessarily a problem as I discovered it when I had mistyped >> an exchange name but I was curious if this was normal behavior or a bug. >> > > It is 'normal' behaviour in that it is what the AMQP specification > requires. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > >
