Hi Rob Thank you for your quick response. Is there some documentation available for "ensureNonDestructiveConsumers"? I couldn't find it in the Broker-J Book.
The single LVQ sounds like an interesting alternative. Usually there will be a database IO, or calculation task run as a consequence of a message. So starting those tasks over and over again, doesn't seem like a good idea. I guess the subscribers would have to check themselves which message they already consumed and which ones they didn't. Or could I solve this issue on the broker level? I want to keep as much of the message routing logic in the broker as possible. If I'd use a fannout exchange I would loose the routing behaviour. So instead of using one, or only a few, topic exchanges, I would have to use many fannout exchanges, correct? Is any of the two patterns superiour to the other? At first glance I do prefer the topic solution. What about binding a fannout exchange to a topic exchange, shouldn't that work? But I would loose the message persistence feature. So only currently online subscribers would receive the message. Which brings me back to the LVQs. fea -- Sent from: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Apache-Qpid-users-f2158936.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
