qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Proposed Feature Removal from Dispatch Router
Date Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:50:04 GMT
On 16/04/18 15:24, Ken Giusti wrote:
> To reply to my own question:
> 
> IMHO when sending an unsettled multicast I would expect
> 1) that all present consumers will get a copy of the message and:
> 2) that any potential consumers that are *not* present would not get a
> copy of the message (right, that's a no-brainer, but hear me out).
> 3) if any consumer signals a REJECT
> 
> So I would like the router to:
> 
> 1) send back a final disposition of REJECT if *any* client returned a REJECT.
> The spec is pretty clear that the message is considered invalid by the recipient
>   in this case.  That's a pretty big deal, since I assumed that the message is
> not invalid when it was sent.  This could possibly indicate a bug or a state
> mismatch between sender and receiver.  I would want to know about this.

What if there are 10 consumers, and only one of them rejects it? Clearly 
there is a problem, but is it the sender that is best able to react to 
that? Perhaps the consumer that rejected it is at fault since all the 
other consumers considered the message valid.

What if two of the consumer reject for different reasons (i.e. with 
different errors)?

While I agree that the rejection is important information, I'm not sure 
that propagating it to the sender is the necessarily the most useful way 
of signalling this. Maybe some eventing scheme would actually be useful, 
allowing the system to configure where to direct the information so it 
can be acted upon. Failing that better control over logging of this sort 
of thing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message