Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Applied direct reply-to logic - next steps and feedback #1

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

npaschos
Copy link
Owner

I changed the callback_queue from a user-created one to amq.rabbitmq.reply-to. This has resolved the issues described in the README, but I fail to understand why the previous approach did not work.

Also, the code now always uses the direct reply-to logic, is this the best choice?

I would also like some feedback on the things to consider when expanding this code base to a client and server that can recover from connection issues and whether I should start compiling an example of a non-blocking connection.

@lukebakken
Copy link
Collaborator

lukebakken commented May 31, 2019

I'm assuming you've read this?

https://www.rabbitmq.com/direct-reply-to.html

Update - I see you mention that document in your pull request. Unfortunately I have not had time to review this code in depth.

My first thought is that any production-ready RPC server and client should be built using SelectConnection and not BlockingConnection since the latter requires hacks like calling process_data_events and sleep to work. I suggest that your next step be to look at the asynchronous producer / consumer example code for Pika and use those as a starting point.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants