RabbitMQ stream-based client for Scala built on top of Fs2 and Cats Effect -> https://fs2-rabbit.profunktor.dev/
Hi @gvolpe, thanks!
Just to open another topic we were wondering if the implicit channel can be injected in Fs2Rabbit constructor instead of methods.
implicit channel =>
for {
_ <- fs2Rabbit.declareQueue(DeclarationQueueConfig.default(queueName))
_ <- fs2Rabbit.declareExchange(DeclarationExchangeConfig.default(exchangeName, Topic))
_ <- fs2Rabbit.bindQueue(queueName, exchangeName, routingKey)
(acker, consumer) <- fs2Rabbit.createAckerConsumer[String](queueName)
publisher <- fs2Rabbit.createPublisherWithListener[AmqpMessage[String]](
exchangeName,
routingKey,
publishingFlag,
publishingListener
)
_ <- new Flow[F, String](consumer, acker, logPipe, publisher).flow.compile.drain
} yield ()
This means that
Fs2Rabbit and a specific channel are coupled and all the operation in fs2Rabbit works for that channel
What do you think? (I’m asking this because I don’t really like the implicit approach in that case)
one connection may have multiple channels (and likely will, for example if you both consume and publish they should be on different ones)
It might simplify the model to make it a regular param - it would remove some of the duplication of methods in the interfaces vs the Fs2Rabbit class
Especially since you can legitimately have multiple channels, implicit maybe isn't the best even though it does reduce a bunch of code
your one-channel-per-client could be "just" an implementation of those interfaces that uses one channel, instead of being the channel itself
Yep in this way we could have a small client (that implements specific algebras) that delegates to a channel (compose basically all the algebra interfaces) the operation required to be implemented.
And still we could “compose” more clients to build bigger programs. Each client is bound to a specific channel but obviously you can have clients instances with different/same channel instances. Does it make sense?
And still we could “compose” more clients to build bigger programs. Each client is bound to a specific channel but obviously you can have clients instances with different/same channel instances. Does it make sense?
it passes the sniff test at least for me
Thinking about making a
2.1.0 release once #255 is merged. Are people okay with it? The only breaking change to the user seems to be the renaming of Fs2Rabbit for RabbitClient.
Hi, I'm just playing around with fs2-rabbit and looks like some of the examples won't run with the current release (2.0.0) because they reference RabbitClient. Is there any plans on doing the release for 2.1.0 that was mentioned ^. I could build something locally but an official release would be great.
@gvolpe Would you be opposed to temporarily incorporating the old types back in (if it can be implemented) with
@deprecated to ease the upgrade
I should have laid that out when we started working on the refactor :)
@/all sorry for the delay, a new release
2.1.0 is on its way to Maven Central: https://github.com/profunktor/fs2-rabbit/releases/tag/2.1.0
will be nice once I can get onto 2.0 :laughing:
fwiw going forward, unless we get a design boost from it, I'd like to stagger releases from breaking cats/fs2 updates
Maybe this should just be something I hook up a local artifactory for, or vendor it one way or another
One per consumer / publisher is in general a good way to get started
Though, you'd need some monitoring to see what's best for your application.
@Koroeskohr
use a channel for each
