Comment by mlyle
> I was reading Hacker News a few days ago and stumbled on a comment posted by ...
> I was reading Hacker News a few days ago and stumbled on a comment posted by ...
The whole refusal to accept that a field could legitimately define something differently than how you prefer, and then running off to blog about it and name names... and then coming around for round II of flamewar... with ever more splitting of hairs in definitions... is not awesome.
You are especially well-answered here, I think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41599131
One reason the delivery / processing distinction exists because very often the application needs to atomically persist "I have received this message" with any other state changes made as a result of processing that message for correctness. You can't generally solve this with a layer put on top, even on the same machine. If it's not atomic, then you can still deliver duplicates to the application or end up never delivering to the application. (Power goes out when one side has written but not the other).
So, the state change to "already received" and the changes you want to make in response to the message being received have to happen together. TCP or even a message queueing implementation with a persistence layer cannot solve this problem for you. Thus, the application needs to deal with multiple delivery.
Imagine a "subtract $5 from my bank account" message with no ID on the message itself, and a layer "on top" that gives IDs and tries to ensure exactly once delivery. If the layer "on top" does not change state at the exact time $5 is deducted from the account, bad things can happen-- and in practice this is impossible. Hence, the application needs to be able to cope with the "subtract $5" being delivered to it multiple times, and this deduping has to be intimately tied to it subtracting the $5 (processing).
> You are especially well-answered here
I don't see anything there that is at odds with anything I have said. All I see there is a restatement of my position.
> One reason the delivery / processing distinction exists because very often the application needs to atomically...
Yes. Do you really think I did not already know that?
> Thus, the application needs to deal with multiple delivery.
That depends on your requirements. What does that have to do with the possibility or impossibility of exactly-once delivery?
> Imagine a "subtract $5 from my bank account" message with no ID on the message itself
I have never denied that you can invent scenarios that will fail. I explicitly said that exactly-once delivery is likely not what you want. What does that have to do with whether or not it is possible?
> Yes. Do you really think I did not already know that?
Well, if the application and this mythical higher-level thing have to do things atomically and be tightly wed, but you're insistent on calling them different entities so that you can win an internet argument that the second one is not getting duplicate "deliveries" ... then that's honestly kind of sad.
The literature has used the term "delivery" like this basically 100% of the time for the past 20 years, and the majority of the time somewhere else. You can argue that your definition makes sense to you, but when everyone else uses the term the other way it's not helpful. Anyone can choose to define words differently from everyone else and then try to lawyer it out, but it's not likely to be useful or accepted.
Really? That is what causes you to question whether or not I'm acting in good faith?
If that's what you call "calling people out by name" I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.