|| at Apr 14, 2011 at 9:57 am
On 14/04/11 10:49, Simon MacMullen wrote:
On 14/04/11 10:45, Alfonso Pantoja wrote:
specially in critical systems where losing a message is not
In this case, use explicit acks. No excuses :)
Actually, this could have been clearer, since it's often misunderstood.
The point of explicit ack-ing is not to prove that the message traversed
the network successfully. TCP does that for us. It's to prove that the
consuming application has taken responsibility for the message without
crashing - that it's made it into a database or a file, decided it can
safely ignore it, forwarded it to another system, whatever.
That's why it has to be an explicit step - only the consuming
application actually knows what constitutes accepting the message.
Staff Engineer, RabbitMQ
SpringSource, a division of VMware