Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support for the Header Exchange trigger binding #71

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

ianrathbone
Copy link

@ianrathbone ianrathbone commented Sep 27, 2019

One of the concepts supported by RabbitMQ is the "Headers Exchange".
You can read more on this here: https://www.rabbitmq.com/tutorials/amqp-concepts.html

This pull request modifies the existing binding to add support for specifying an exchange instead of a queue. In the RabbitMQ Service this will create a queue based on the exchange name and bind based on specified x-match headers with supplied arguments.

I'm looking to use this in an upcoming project that relies heavily on this methodology, by spinning up several functions that will listen to their own specific headers independently of each other.

I appreciate the work you have done so far and look forward to seeing how I can help extend the functionality of this extension!

@msftclas
Copy link

@msftclas msftclas commented Sep 27, 2019

CLA assistant check
All CLA requirements met.


if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(arguments))
{
var argumentObject = JObject.Parse(arguments);
Copy link
Author

@ianrathbone ianrathbone Sep 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I shall hold my hands up and confess here that I wasn't sure on the best way to pass in the header arguments in order to pass them to QueueBind as a Dictionary. Any advice here would be appreciated!

@fabiocav
Copy link
Member

@fabiocav fabiocav commented Oct 30, 2019

Thank you for sending this! We'll provide some feedback on the PR as soon as possible

@jeffhollan can you please comment on the scenario? The issue is #69 if you want to move the discussion there.

@fabiocav fabiocav added this to the Functions Sprint 62 milestone Oct 30, 2019
@fabiocav
Copy link
Member

@fabiocav fabiocav commented Jul 22, 2020

Apologies about the lack of response here.

@jeffhollan / @dariagrigoriu can you please comment on the functionality?

@yojagad
Copy link
Contributor

@yojagad yojagad commented Dec 2, 2020

Pinging here as we have been resuming work on this extension. We don't create non-existent queues anymore like we used to, could you rebase and comment on how this functionality might fit in with the existing model ?

@msftbot
Copy link

@msftbot msftbot bot commented Dec 10, 2020

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has been marked as requiring author feedback but has not had any activity for 7 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 7 days of this comment.

@msftbot msftbot bot closed this Dec 17, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants