Michael Bridgen

OK. Sorry for the long silence. I have pushed a change to master which lets you tell a socket not to try and create objects when connecting; this means you...

Node.JS can have pretty unhelpful behaviour under load, so it's difficult to narrow down what might be the problem. As a guess though, it's easy to ignore back-pressure from publishing,...

> Is it as simple as adding another param to ReqSocket.connect Do you want replies to go back via an exchange as well, or just the requests?

The complications are: 1. The return path must be encoded in each request. The conventional way to do this is to put a queue name in the 'replyTo' header. Having...

Another (weaker) objection is that the point of rabbit.js is to not have to think about exchanges and queues. What is your motivation for sending via an exchange?

> Also, setting a different exchange than the default allows us to set durability and auto-delete and all that. The default exchange is durable, and doesn't need auto-deletion; but I...

Hello, sorry to miss this one for a while. The RabbitMQ docs you quote are saying "**don't** create a queue per request, create a queue per client". It's the latter...

I see, you want to multiplex requests from different sources over the socket (or create multiple sockets). The way rabbit.js works, you would have to know the order in which...

Yes, garbage-collecting exchanges is a pain. I haven't come up with a good solution -- it's a gap in AMQP, really. The flaw in this change is that it only...

> The flaw in this change is that it only takes into account subscribers To explain the problem a bit more: if an exchange is marked as auto-delete, once no...