NATS VS RabbitMQ

[1] https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server/issues/6832#issuecomm...

https://nats.io is easier to use than Kafka and already solves several of the points in this post I believe, like removing partitions, supporting key-based streams, and having flexible topic hierarchies.

Look at the contribution history, basically all active contributors work for Synadia: https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server/graphs/contributors

That's not a healthy / functioning open source community. Less than 30 people have made more than 10 commits; most of the 160 were "drive by" who fixed a single small thing.

NATS, with its lightweight and high-performance design, offers features well-suited for sandbox testing. We can leverage NATS queue groups, which function similarly to Kafka consumer groups.

In today’s dynamic cloud environments, managing Kubernetes resources across multiple clusters can be a complex task. Traditional methods often lack the agility and event-driven architecture needed to respond quickly to changes and automate resource provisioning. This article explores how Sveltos, in conjunction with NATS and JetStream, simplifies multi-cluster Kubernetes management through event-driven automation, streamlining operations and improving responsiveness.

hey thanks!

definitely interesting!

I do wonder if this really solves the author problem because by the looks of it , you just have to run meta command and it would run over each of the sub directory. While at the same time , I think I like it because this is what I think people refer to as "modular monolith"

Combining this with nats https://nats.io/ (hey if you don't want it to be over the network , you could use nats with the memory model of your application itself to reduce any overhead) and essentially just get yourself a really modular monolith in which you can then seperate things selectively (ahem , microservices) afterwards rather easily.

and now decided to write more complex things using https://nats.io and https://data-star.dev -

RabbitMQ - Feature-rich message broker

Alternatives to: Redis (Queue, Pub/Sub), ZeroMQ, RabbitMQ, Apache Kafka, Amazon Simple Queue Service, Google Cloud Pub/Sub

When something important happens (like a new user signing up), that part of the app sends a message—think of it like dropping a letter in a mailbox. Other parts of the app can listen for those messages and react when they arrive. The middleman that passes the message along is called a message broker—and one of the most popular is RabbitMQ. This setup means the sender and the receiver don’t have to be active at the same time. One service can keep moving, and the rest will catch up.

RabbitMQ Official Documentation

rabbitmq

Asynchronous Communication Patterns: Utilize message queues and event-driven architectures to decouple services and improve scalability. By using these patterns, you can handle high volumes of asynchronous requests more efficiently. For example, implementing a message queue like RabbitMQ or Kafka can help manage the flow of requests between services.

Consume open-source queuing services – customers can deploy message brokers such as ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ, to develop asynchronous applications, and when moving to the public cloud, use the cloud providers managed services alternatives.

We are using redis as our broker. You can opt for RabbitMQ which is supported out-of-box by celery.

Asynchronous processing can be implemented using queueing technologies like RabbitMQ or Apache Kafka. For Python applications, a popular go-to is Celery, a distributed task queue that integrates well with various web frameworks.