I basically just want to clone their docs
I used the dev container for jekyll in vs code
Shame I really liked the text one
[Observer(DefaultGroup.Second, DefaultName.Db, typeof(Account))]
for example
I don't see how the group or name matters
but not sure about the group names.
To allow for avoiding queue depth issues
And duplicating streams for different consumers. Makes sense now.
But what's the name have to do with that? Need to dig more
it should go by consumer typeid.
Are there reasons why not?
Shouldn't each consumer have it's own queue?
Producer publishes single event
Broker duplicates the event across multiple queues based on the routing key
In fact if they share the same group, different consumers won't get the event
At least from the rabbit perspective.
The code may deliver the same event off the queue to multiple subscribers even though they don't have corresponding queues.
I'm still digging through the logic around message delivery.
Last night I was exploring archives, very nice btw
In case the message is dequeued on silo a, but observer is activated on silo b
Perhaps that what the synchronize observers does..still reading code
We'd want the placement of the observer to be on the same silo of the queue reader for that specific observer. (Locality)
And of course if the grain is 100% reentrant we may employ a strategy where the queue is consumed once per silo and delivered to locally activated grains
Dunno, have to finish reading code
Actually, it is better for performance to use direct but faout in rabbit mq. That is why direct queue comes up. Performance first is the almost first consideration about Ray.
if you want to use some faout queue in rabbit mq . maybe you`d better to use some event bus things.
My suggestion is to decrease the complexity, and model it for a ES + CQRS + DDD approach.