It *is* a problem though when the groups are formed dynamically on
a per message basis, i.e. when each consumer has a unique secret
token, known to the producer, and the producer constructs the
recipient group of the message on the fly by including all the
intended recipient's tokens in the message headers.
I understand you now, and above is exactly the situation I have. I
wonder if a custom exchange type can remove headers from a message
prior to delivery.
Here is a design:

Allow CC and BCC fields* when publishing. These are given to exchange
types** when routing (i.e., they are part of the envelope); and, the
routing code removes Bcc before actually delivering to queues.

Full semantics left as an exercise*** for the reader.

* They would probably have to be put in message headers, but possibly
they could be given specific support in our clients.

** We'd update direct and topic to take account of them; fanout and
headers don't need to, and other types given be given the fields and do
what they like.

*** For example, "" is a valid routing key, so how do you send to
multiple recipients just with BCC field?


Michael

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 7 of 17 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouprabbitmq-discuss @
categoriesrabbitmq
postedNov 8, '10 at 5:34p
activeNov 18, '10 at 6:44p
posts17
users7
websiterabbitmq.com
irc#rabbitmq

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase