Replies: 3 comments
-
@fracasula In fact, we currently have no mandatory requirements for this. But we are considering whether to strictly abide by the MQTT spec. What are your thoughts on this? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi @tigercl! I'm actually glad that you guys aren't relying on the acks to be sent back in order. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind those specs so I'm investigating a bit more to see if I can understand why it was specced out that way. Btw, I think not having the requirement to send the acks in order strongly simplifies the client implementation and I can see use cases where the client can leverage that to increase concurrency while keeping in-order guarantees per topic/clientID. I believe that is something that you're offering out of the box with the Anyway, as I said, I'll try to gather more information about this and possibly post an update here before closing if that is OK with you. In the meantime, thanks for getting back to me 👍 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@fracasula I'm glad you mentioned its role in improving concurrency. It provides us with a new perspective to think about this matter. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello guys 👋 I have a simple question for you.
The MQTT v5 specs say that acknowledgement packets must be sent in the order in which the corresponding
PUBLISH
packets were received.https://docs.oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v5.0/os/mqtt-v5.0-os.html#_Toc3901240
I checked with the VerneMQ guys and that it is not a requirement for their broker.
Is it a requirement when using the EMQX Broker instead?
Thanks!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions