Re: [zeromq-dev] ZeroMQ 4.2 release, planning

2016-10-06 Thread Doron Somech
No new socket type, I worked at the time on binary message type, might complete it sometime, but it is not urgent. If there is a lot of performance penalty we can give it up, I will find another solution for the Radio-Dish. What about 96 bytes? same penalty? Regarding the binding, I'm not sure.

Re: [zeromq-dev] BDFL literally

2016-10-06 Thread Trevor Bernard
Don't worry about sponsorship. My company will pay to renew them for the next while (within reason). Just send me the details and I'll pay the the bill. -Trev On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:35 AM, Osiris Pedroso wrote: > Could you please list them? > I would like to sponsor a

Re: [zeromq-dev] BDFL literally

2016-10-06 Thread Brian Knox
That's great news Trevor On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:18 AM Trevor Bernard wrote: > Don't worry about sponsorship. My company will pay to renew them for > the next while (within reason). Just send me the details and I'll pay > the the bill. > > -Trev > > On Thu, Oct 6,

Re: [zeromq-dev] ZeroMQ 4.2 release, planning

2016-10-06 Thread Thomas Rodgers
> > What about 96 bytes? same penalty? If you are going to bump the size to > 64 bytes (x86 cache line size), it likely should be rounded up to to 128 bytes, so as to eliminate any potential for false sharing on architectures with 64 byte cache lines. Having said that, I've been playing with an

Re: [zeromq-dev] czmq / zyre releases

2016-10-06 Thread Wes Young
ack. obs can hard-code commits into the build system(s) for the time being, just thinking about time-frames. ty! > On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Kevin Sapper wrote: > > we thought about it and came to the same conclusion, that we should wait > until libzmq 4.2 is

Re: [zeromq-dev] BDFL literally

2016-10-06 Thread Ewen McNeill
On 6/10/16 20:18, Trevor Bernard wrote: Don't worry about sponsorship. My company will pay to renew them for the next while (within reason). Just send me the details and I'll pay the the bill. Replying to the list, since a couple of people have asked. I think Doron would much appreciate

[zeromq-dev] BUG: SUB socket + multi-part message + disconnect + recv = Assertion failed at src/fq.cpp:117

2016-10-06 Thread af
* ZEROMQ VERSION - 4.1.4 - 4.1.5 * SYSTEM - RHEL 6.8 on x86_64 - Ubuntu 16.04 on x86_64 * TEST CASE (see attachment) create PUB socket bind endpoint create SUB socket subscribe all connect endpoint wait a little for connection to take place

Re: [zeromq-dev] czmq / zyre releases

2016-10-06 Thread Kevin Sapper
Hi Wes, we thought about it and came to the same conclusion, that we should wait until libzmq 4.2 is released. Thanks to zproject releasing is complete automated so no help needed ;) Though I would like to push to API of zyre to stable before. Am 06.10.2016 19:23 schrieb "Wes Young"

[zeromq-dev] czmq / zyre releases

2016-10-06 Thread Wes Young
has anyone given any thought in cutting new releases of czmq and zyre ? i *think* they both work with 4.1, but there might be new features they take advantage of in 4.2 (i forget off hand), so if/when zeromq-4.2 is released, maybe a good time to cut new versions of those as well? czmq 3.0.2

Re: [zeromq-dev] BDFL literally

2016-10-06 Thread Steven McCoy
Is zero.mq owned by someone else? On 6 October 2016 at 17:39, Ewen McNeill wrote: > On 6/10/16 20:18, Trevor Bernard wrote: > >> Don't worry about sponsorship. My company will pay to renew them for >> the next while (within reason). Just send me the details and I'll

Re: [zeromq-dev] BDFL literally

2016-10-06 Thread Ewen McNeill
On 7/10/16 15:28, Ewen McNeill wrote: On 7/10/16 14:05, Steven McCoy wrote: Is zero.mq owned by someone else? I don't know. mq doesn't appear to have useful whois servers. Ah, finally found a usable web whois service for .mq https://www.dom-enic.com/whois.html Appears to

Re: [zeromq-dev] BDFL literally

2016-10-06 Thread Trevor Bernard
The name servers are from slicehost if that means anything On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Ewen McNeill wrote: > On 7/10/16 14:05, Steven McCoy wrote: >> >> Is zero.mq owned by someone else? > > > I don't know. mq doesn't appear to have useful whois

Re: [zeromq-dev] BDFL literally

2016-10-06 Thread Ewen McNeill
On 7/10/16 14:05, Steven McCoy wrote: Is zero.mq owned by someone else? I don't know. mq doesn't appear to have useful whois servers. I know it's not in Pieter's main list of domains at Gandi, but while trying to straighten out some other domains I did find that he had more