I'm also fine just marking deprecated and reverting my size check change.
No don't do this! Preventing memory corruption can only be a good thing.
I agree, but basically makes it completely unusable in certain use cases
(as you so eloquently put it, this option is 'weird').
Anyway, unless
Excellent, I submitted issue 1296
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/1296 to capture it. I will put
together the pull req over the weekend.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pieter Hintjens p...@imatix.com wrote:
Sounds good.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Thomas Rodgers
Arnaud Kapp schreef op de 9e dag van de louwmaand van het jaar 2015:
Hello,
I agree that this option is weird, and it's behavior not properly
defined (the fd_t stuff).
However, shouldn't we mark this option as deprecated instead, and
remove it in a later version?
It wasn't part of any
I'm also fine just marking deprecated and reverting my size check change.
No don't do this! Preventing memory corruption can only be a good thing.
It wasn't part of any release (except pre-release).
Oh I didn't realize it was that new.
Well in that case, if we're going to remove it we might
Sounds good.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Thomas Rodgers rodg...@twrodgers.com wrote:
I would like to propose removing this option before it becomes part of an
officially released API, but I would like to reassurance that this is an
appropriate course of action before doing so.
My
I would like to propose removing this option before it becomes part of an
officially released API, but I would like to reassurance that this is an
appropriate course of action before doing so.
My reasoning for removing it is as follows -
* It is the only option to zmq_getsockopt() that treats
Hello,
I agree that this option is weird, and it's behavior not properly
defined (the fd_t stuff).
However, shouldn't we mark this option as deprecated instead, and
remove it in a later version?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Pieter Hintjens p...@imatix.com wrote:
Great :-)
On Fri, Jan 9,
Great :-)
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Thomas Rodgers rodg...@twrodgers.com wrote:
Excellent, I submitted issue 1296 to capture it. I will put together the
pull req over the weekend.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pieter Hintjens p...@imatix.com wrote:
Sounds good.
On Fri, Jan 9,
I guess my question is, since 4.1 hasn't been 'released' and is still an
rc, can we just avoid the potential downstream heartache all together and
remove it?
I'm also fine just marking deprecated and reverting my size check change.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Arnaud Kapp kapp.a...@gmail.com
Thomas Rodgers schreef op de 9e dag van de louwmaand van het jaar 2015:
I guess my question is, since 4.1 hasn't been 'released' and is still an
rc, can we just avoid the potential downstream heartache all together and
remove it?
Seems sensible to me. The same goes for the socket options
10 matches
Mail list logo
