In my opinion, in the context of the router, the accepted outcome should
always mean that the message was routed to an appropriate receiver which
then accepted it.
If a producer, connected to router A sends messages on address for which
there is a consumer connected to router B, then if router A and router B
become momentarily disconnected, those messages that could not be routed
will be released and the producer knows that they did not make it to the
intended recipient. Having the same behaviour by default for multicast
makes sense in my opinion as it is more consistent.
The behaviour of releasing messages due to there being no consumer to
which they can be routed, yet still reissuing credit for them, is in my
opinion an inconsistent combination. Either the router cares about
whether it can route on that address (in which case it will release any
messages that can't be routed and will not grant more credit) or it does
not (and could therefore 'accept' message though it immediately drops
them, but always issue credit).
Personally I would be inclined to treat DISPATCH-1423 and DISPATCH-779
as not-a-bug. I understand that the router behaviour might not always be
what everyone expects (particularly those thinking in terms of a 'topic'
on a 'broker'), but I don't think it is 'wrong'. I'm not yet convinced
there is a sufficiently strong case for needing that behaviour to
justify an extra configuration option to test and document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
