Michael Bridgen

Just to check I understand what you're after: instead of ``` var req = ctx.socket('REQUEST'); req.connect("questions"); req.write("foobar?"); var answer = req.read(); ``` you'd rather have (something like): ``` var req...

I don't think this would be overly difficult but I might not get to it very soon -- anyone fancy giving it a go?

> when you read from socket, you should expect to get messages in random order. I don't think that would help -- you wouldn't know what is an answer to...

Right, the WORKER socket assumes you're doing just one thing at a time, and scaling up by having more workers. This discussion may be apposite: https://github.com/squaremo/rabbit.js/issues/48 The solution discussed there...

> I would love to have a extended ack method that can accept the message payload (or a uniqueId) for acking that single message. Both of these are problematic: the...

> I think that you can send, along the message, the deliveryTag that message has. As I see [1] the readable.push method, I think this change will break the current...

The example includes empty documents. Do you have evidence that it produces problematic output when there are no empty documents? If not, that might be why it doesn't seem to...

> I would prefer something with a callback: The trouble is that this callback would have to be passed all the way down to the socket, and the underlying library...

The other thing that occurs to me is that I don't support the Writable event 'finish', which is supposed to be called after 1. the stream has been ended and...

> i'm doing that because without it, the message never gets sent. I don't get any errors or anything Hrm, so it doesn't work i the way I claim. That...