Artem Bilan

@samragu , See the comment from RabbitMQ team member: https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-amqp/issues/2688#issuecomment-2076548597. So, an `x-death` is still going to be there and its `count` will be incremented anyway, but apparently that is...

@dvovney , as you said yourself, RabbitMQ starting with version `3.13.x` is not going to take into account the `x-death` sent from the client. So, you are right: our Spring...

No, I'm not proposing to add such a header since it turned out there is no any DLX retry components in the framework. We have the mentioned docs in Rabbit...

Yeah... Sorry, that was wrong sample code. In my feeling this one supposed to work because we just do `AmqpRejectAndDontRequeueException`, this one leads to the `channel.basicNack()` and that must dump...

@ansd , here is a sample to confirm that we have a problem with `count` in RabbitMQ `3.13`: https://github.com/artembilan/sandbox/tree/master/spring-cloud-stream-rabbit-dlq. When I change Docker image to `3.12` tag, it works well....

I see. Thanks. So, I was wrong. That `AmqpRejectAndDontRequeueException` leads indeed to manual publishing from Rabbit Binder in the `RabbitMessageChannelBinder.getErrorMessageHandler()`. Couple time it is without `x-death` header, but then we...

Thanks for confirmation, @ansd ! So, here is a workaround for the current Spring Cloud Stream version: ``` spring.cloud.stream.rabbit.bindings.input.consumer.republish-to-dlq=false ``` And it is going to work just exactly as you...

Well, looking into this one more time and having the fact that current `x-death` solution works (per `3.13`) for both broker and client DLX, it feels like we would have...

The `java.io.File` is not OK abstraction to transfer via network. Even if we really can convert it into a file path and then serialize that string properly when we send...

Thanks, Chris, but doesn't look like that doc shows how to do that. It talks about functions, but we have here apps which are things in itself and, yeah, tied...