5 ms·
I guess we can debate the semantics of it because it is technically possible. But it is terrible design to have a SQS to many different consumers. If someone di
by specialp 4y ago
I guess we can debate the semantics of it because it is technically possible. But it is terrible design to have a SQS to many different consumers. If someone did that I would reject it on review. In any proper usage of SQS it is many to one.
- andrew_ 4y agothere are edge cases where that's desirable. I won't enumerate them here but they're discoverable on the Googles. I also would advise against that kind of passionate adherence to infrastructure dogma, taking a more analytical approach to review.
- specialp 4y agoIf you could name even one I would remove the "dogma". I cannot think of why anyone would want to do that. And if someone did want to do that they would have to have a very compelling reason to complicate what is usually an easy thing (One action listening on a queue)
- afandian 4y agoHow do you scale out processing if you can't have more than one consumer?
- specialp 4y agoI am not referring to multiple homogeneous consumers processing a queue. That is fine. You have a pool of consumers that can pick up from the queue. That is still considered one entity/actor. The people here are proposing having multiple heterogeneous consumers consume from the queue. That is bad.