Open Stack

On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 09:43 -0400, Eric Windisch wrote:
> > My I'm thinking of an exchange is simply that it's a namespace
> > under which topics live:
> > 
> > 
> The discussion we were having was that we should NOT expose the
> control_exchange in the API unless we also expose the queue connection
> mechanism. The reason is that the control_exchange is presently a
> point of clean sharding between projects.

Yes, I'm proposing the concept of "exchange" purely as a namespace for
projects to keep their topics separated ... and allow multiple instances
of the project share the same space by allowing the exchange name to be
user configurable.

> Each unique value of control_exchange can be safely sharded to a
> separate broker or, in the case of ZeroMQ, to a separate rpc_zmq_port.
> This latter point is important because it feeds back into the ipc_dir
> discussion we had; Projects can have their own IPC directory if they
> run on their own rpc_zmq_port.  Of course, sharding for RabbitMQ/Qpid
> might also be useful...

I don't think what I'm saying changes that. You can absolutely put each
exchange on a separate broker.

Cheers,
Mark.