2 ms·
I've bumped into this recently. Someone waved their hand and said that x queue system didn't work for their specific use case. so they spent an innovation token
by KaiserPro 6y ago
I've bumped into this recently. Someone waved their hand and said that x queue system didn't work for their specific use case. so they spent an innovation token on making a slow unmonitored queuing system. unsurprisingly the project is late, and it only now has started to work on the bits its supposed to handle. (three months after the public announcement)
When I asked for the rationale, they said that x queue system didn't do ordered delivery. The queue system literally has the word "ordered" in it.
Its not really their fault, they project manager should have stopped it. However its still not an excuse to re-invent the wheel.
- sudhirj 6y agoYeah, a similar nightmare prompted a lot of this reasearch. A colleague would argue for what felt like hours against SQS because it was “random” ordering, and kept demanding we use something that had strict FIFO. Despite the clients who placed the jobs not being affected by or caring about execution order. The worst part was that we had paid a shit ton of money for many globally distributed executors to increase throughout - I simply didn’t have the vocabulary to explain how asking for strict FIFO would mean only one executor would be running at a time, wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars.