21.03.2012 20:35, Johnny Gozde написал:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Boris Gulay bo...@boressoft.ru
mailto:bo...@boressoft.ru wrote:
I see that latest version differs very match from 2.2.2. If I want to
make some patches can I make it for stable version?
Yes, you can make
Hi everybody,
In my program I've got an assertion in mailbox.cpp:84 (zeromq-2.1.11).
Could you explain me why this might hapenning?
I use singlethreaded application under Windows 7 OS.
The application repeatedly sends data through PUB socket and never
receives any messages.
-Mikhail Navernyuk
When you need asynchronous communication you better use ROUTER/DEALER than
REQ/REP, the only time I may want
to use a REQ socket is to write a simple client taking to a server using a
ROUTER socket.
Except that I am still wondering why would anyone use REP/REQ given its
limitations for anything
On Mar 30, 2012, at 7:04 AM, Schmurfy wrote:
When you need asynchronous communication you better use ROUTER/DEALER than
REQ/REP, the only time I may want
to use a REQ socket is to write a simple client taking to a server using a
ROUTER socket.
Except that I am still wondering why would
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Mikhail Navernyuk
mike.nav...@gmail.comwrote:
The application repeatedly sends data through PUB socket and never
receives any messages.
-Mikhail Navernyuk
Can you create a small programme that repeatably demonstrates the issue?
Ideally in C. It'll make it
Does anyone have any problem if I back port the send/recv time out socket
options to 2.1.x?
Joshua
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
I suppose you could use PUB/SUB with subscriptions, I don't know
enough about your topology or message patterns to be sure. The
advantage would be if you needed to do 1 to N transmission or messages
or N to 1 reception.
-Michel
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Andrei Zmievski
Al,
I apologize since this is probably more an autotool/gcc issue rather
then anything with zmq but I am hoping somebody run into similar
troubles and might offer some help.
I am trying to compile zmq on a new box: Windows 7, Cygwin 1.7, gcc
(GCC) 4.5.3 and I get errors with the visibility
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Boris Gulay bo...@boressoft.ru wrote:
Yes, you can make patches against the stable version. This will be
supported for a long time. If the patches make sense for the unstable
version, I'll apply them there as well.
https://github.com/zeromq/clrzmq/pull/58
I
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Joshua Foster jhaw...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have any problem if I back port the send/recv time out socket
options to 2.1.x?
Sounds like a great idea.
We'll have to modify the ABI version. This may impact bindings.
-Pieter
Looking through the code, much of it has already been back ported as part of
issue 231. Are we still using the https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq2-1
repository for the 2.1.x development?
Joshua
On Mar 30, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Joshua Foster
ROUTER-ROUTER seemed to work. I just set the socket identity on process
B to something known and then process A uses that to send the messages. The
socket in process A is anonymous.
-Andrei
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Michel Pelletier
pelletier.mic...@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose you could
Yes, that's the repo. Note that every change needs to be backed by an
issue and a test case.
Apart from the can we change the ABI version number question, it
seems a good investment in 2.1.
So my suggestion is, make an issue, make a test case, then make a pull
request (please also update the ABI
Does adding to the API/ABI really make sense at this late point in the
2.1.x series? This will be the first such change since the first stable
2.1 release, as far as I know.
I thought patch releases were only meant to contain bugfixes, etc., not API
expansion. It's fine if API/ABI are
Interesting tidbit from a YouTube presentation,
*Serialization formats* - no matter which one you use, they are all
expensive. Measure. Don’t use pickle. Not a good choice. Found protocol
buffers slow. They wrote their own BSON implementation which is 10-15 time
faster than the one you can
I'd be interested in hearing some of the numbers the community has gotten for
its real workloads. Right now I work exclusively with customers leveraging 0MQ
on Windows and under real workloads there we've experienced anywhere from 300K
to 1.5 million messages a second throughput (the 1.5
16 matches
Mail list logo
