Yes, creating and destroying a lot of sockets very rapidly is an anti-pattern.
If each thread needs its own socket, I recommend that it should check it out
from a (thread-safe) pool and then check it back in again after it completes
its work.
On Aug 19, 2013, at 3:34 PM, crocket
On Jan 7, 2013, at 3:50 AM, zhouhuanhuan111 zhouhuanhuan...@163.com wrote:
Hello:
I'am a user of zeromq-3.2.2 , now i hava a quetion to ask ,help you can
help me :
I create a push tcp socket on a node to send message , create a pull
tcp soket on another node to recv
On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:58 AM, pprun pprun.dra...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
If the tasks of workers are the same, is it possible to register more
than one workers(with the same service name) to broker, then let the
tasks run in parallel?
Yes, absolutely. Try running the code with multiple workers
No, you should not use PUSH and ROUTER together. Your use-case mentions that
*some* clients need to send a reply. A PUSH socket is send-only so you would
never be able to receive those replies.
I recommend that you use DEALER and ROUTER sockets for your use-case. See this
article for some
than all this fuss with DEALER.
2. I have some already developed clients use PUSH and would prefer to keep
the code intact.
That is why I wonder if it is eligible to pair PUSH and ROUTER sockets.
Thanks.
13.11.2012, 20:33, Chuck Remes li...@chuckremes.com:
No, you should not use PUSH
No, do not do this. If it works at all right now, it will break in a future
library release when the wire protocol enforces peer socket type checking.
ROUTER - ROUTER is fine as is ROUTER - DEALER.
Alternately, do PUB - SUB. As of libzmq 3.2, the publisher filters out the
outgoing messages so
Zeromq isn't saving anything to persistent storage.
So let's say you have program A and program B. You set explicit identities on
all sockets that both programs use and then connect them together. Now, let's
assume you are sending data back and forth between A and B but you decide to
shutdown
Give us a link (use pastie.org, gist.github.com, etc) of the *exact same* code
you are compiling and running. We need to see what you are doing.
cr
On Oct 29, 2012, at 3:18 AM, Ineil wrote:
I have recently started to evaluate 0MQ, and as part of this evaluation I was
trying the Pub/Sub
John,
I have every confidence that you can figure out the command line version of the
git utilities.
cr
On Oct 27, 2012, at 3:40 PM, John Muehlhausen wrote:
I think I just sent you a pull request on issues for the issue 456 test case
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:33 PM, John Muehlhausen
I don't know. What did it do when you tried it?
cr
On Oct 26, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Kah-Chan Low wrote:
Hi,
What happens if a ZQM dealer calls connect() multiple times on the same
address?
Thanks!
kc
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
Please use pastie.org or gist.github.com to post the code that is causing this
failure. Also, we need to know the version of libzmq, the OS, the language
binding you are using and any other relevant information.
cr
On Oct 25, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Shun Zhang wrote:
Hi, all.
I wrote a
All of the documentation consistently warns you about doing a full-memory
barrier (mutex, semaphore, etc) if you are going to use a socket in more than
one thread. If you create it in one and pass it to another for operations, then
you don't need to be too concerned about this.
So, to answer
, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Chuck Remes li...@chuckremes.com wrote:
No, it is not guaranteed that socket3 will be ready for a connection. All
binds (and connects) happen asynchronously in the I/O thread. Depending on
your machine performance, it could be ready in 10ms, 100ms or more.
Hmm, on inproc
Click on this link: http://zguide2.zeromq.org/page:all
Search for slow joiner and read the resulting text.
cr
On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Rohan Bedarkar wrote:
Maybe there is already a thread on this topic but couldn't find one.
As per the docs for zmq_connect, The connection will
Try it again with the example program local_thr and remote_thr and see if the
results match using the same inputs.
BTW, it looks reasonable to me. I have a similar machine (it's about 4 years
old) and get around 55 usec latency as an average. Throughput is usually a bit
higher especially for
It's a long-standing bug that is very difficult to fix. The work around is to
do as you discovered which is *always bind first* and then connect when using
inproc transport.
For details as to why this is hard, try searching the mailing list archive. The
answer would have been given by Martin
As of 3.2, the filtering happens on the publisher side for inproc, tcp and IPC
transports. For the epgm transport, filtering is still (and forever will be) on
the client side.
So, I recommend submitting a pull request to correct the information under
Getting the Message Out and clarifying the
On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:09 PM, Kah-Chan Low wrote:
In a ZMQ socket connection, if one end dies, does the surviving end perform
auto clean-up?
Yes.
cr
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
On Oct 5, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Marco Trapanese wrote:
Hello,
I have several systems, with different hardware, o.s., network, etc...
which runs some applications based upon zmq.
They all have a router/dealer configuration.
I send very small packets ( 50 byte) every few seconds.
In some
On Sep 27, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Davis Ford wrote:
One follow up question, if I try to change the semantics so the client sends
asynchronously, it doesn't seem to work.
[snip]
When it gets to the async loop, the program outputs:
Asynchronous round-trip test...
zmq error:: Unknown
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Dowd, Brian wrote:
HI Michel,
Yes it is a multi-part message on the send side, however the first part is
just the identity/destination/address details
(i.e. client-1/client-2 etc), and the setIdentity() call in the Client side
of things associates thw two
On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Tom Wilberding wrote:
Hi There,
We have been on 2.0.10 for the past year and a half and are planning to
upgrade to 2.2.0 first and then move to 3.2 shortly after that.
From a wireformat perspective, are 2.0.10 and 2.2.0 compatible? My
understanding is that,
On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Yi Ding wrote:
This is on linux with ZMQ 2.2.0
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Yi Ding yi.s.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
I got a strange error today where one of my servers threw an assertion
when I killed a remote.
Here's the error:
Broken pipe
On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Zhong Weilin wrote:
Hi, zmq dev team:
I have minimized the test code, link is:
https://github.com/maigege/zmq_test/, client.cpp is for client, server.cpp is
for server. I have decribed the problem below. Pls help me to check what
happened, thanks a
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Zhong Weilin wrote:
Hi, zmq dev team:
I have already pasted the minimal test case to github.com, link is:
https://github.com/maigege/zmq_demo, zmq_client is a test case of client,
zmq_server is a test case of server. Zmq official doc mentions that client
On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Johnny Gozde joh...@jgoz.net wrote:
I will keep version at 2.2 until clrzmq supports 3.2.
clrzmq v3 (beta) supports 3.2. It will be released some time after ZMQ 3.x
becomes stable.
I'm intending to cut
Correct.
cr
On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:22 AM, John Murphy wrote:
If I do PUB/SUB for example A publishes to B,C,D, the publisher sends 3
copies of the message across the wire. With PUSH/PULL where A pushes to
B,C,D I assume only one copy of the message goes across the wire since only
one of
On Sep 15, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Maninder Batth wrote:
Paul,
That was an excellent idea indeed. As i was simply following the first
example in the guide and developed on top of it, i did not read the api.
After going over the socket API, now, instead of how many messages can a pub
send in a
On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Julie Anderson wrote:
Just tested ZeroMQ and Java NIO in the same machine.
The results:
- ZeroMQ:
message size: 13 [B]
roundtrip count: 10
average latency: 19.620 [us] == ONE-WAY LATENCY
- Java NIO Selector: (EPoll)
Average RTT (round-trip
On Aug 29, 2012, at 4:46 PM, Julie Anderson wrote:
See my comments below:
And mine too.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Robert G. Jakabosky bo...@sharedrealm.com
wrote:
On Wednesday 29, Julie Anderson wrote:
So questions remain:
1) What does ZeroMQ do under the rood that justifies
On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
If the ipc transport is used on unix, can I have one bind and multiple
connects, similar to how I would with the tcp transport? For some reason I
have this idea that unix shared pipes can only be 1 to 1, but I am not
totally
sure on
On Aug 26, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Alexander Voron wrote:
I have the following task:
Clients connect to a server on 1 port (e.g. 8080). The server should
remember them and after completing calculation it should send results
to the clients. After that server gets some results again and again
On Aug 25, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Julie Anderson wrote:
Thanks, Ian. But I am more interested in the results that ZeroMQ has
accomplished. Has anyone from ZeroMQ run any test on loopback that can share
some results?
I can show you a bunch of performance results on a machine that is now 5 years
On Aug 23, 2012, at 4:21 AM, girish kumar wrote:
Typically, we do zero MQ bind to a port in publisher code. But, in this
case how to bind the multiple publisher threads on to the same port. This
is fine with subscriber threads as they simply do zero MQ socket connect.
Use a FORWARDER
On Aug 22, 2012, at 2:17 AM, girish kumar wrote:
Hi All,
We have started recently working on zero MQ. We could able to run the sample
applications successfully.
We have two problems, which we are facing issues in getting answers.
1. We have a scenario where there are multiple
On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:35 AM, Brilliantov Kirill Vladimirovich wrote:
Hello!
I use ZeroMQ 2.2.0 for interprocess communication on ARM-based board.
I write two daemons with ZMQ_REP/ZMQ_REQ mechanism, socket address
ipc://config - first control config file, second get some parameters
from
On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Bjorn Reese wrote:
On 2012-08-21 12:53, andrea crotti wrote:
The problem is that I get some strange messages like these:
('received', '\x00GM\xc1\x17`]C\xa0\xaeTDc\xdf\x8f\xc7\x8c')
('received', '')
('received', 'Task?')
What is it and where does that
On Aug 21, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Santosh N Dumbre wrote:
Is it possible to store message to database using zmq message queue ?
Please suggest.
Zeromq doesn't have any code for storing anything into a database. You need to
write that code yourself. You can use zeromq to move your messages
On Aug 17, 2012, at 7:32 AM, andrea crotti wrote:
You must match a connect with a bind. You cannot have 2 (or more) sockets
use zmq_connect to connect to each other. The socket(s) must have something
to connect *to* and that is only true when a socket has bound an address.
Again,
Correct. No need to check zmq_error() unless zmq_poll() returns an error code.
cr
On Aug 16, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Michel Pelletier wrote:
It looks like you are assigning zerr twice and not checking the return
from poll. I don't think zmq_error() will return a sensible value
unless zmq_poll
On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:50 AM, andrea crotti wrote:
Very good makes sense, but then why this also hangs forever??
if __name__ == '__main__':
p1 = Process(target=start_send)
p2 = Process(target=start_receive)
p3 = Process(target=start_receive)
p2.start()
p3.start()
On Aug 15, 2012, at 8:28 AM, andrea crotti wrote:
Ok thanks is clear now.. But I'm still getting weird errors which I
can't still quite understand.. For example, suppose I push with
only one process and I pull with N clients, is that correct to say
that the pusher should bind the socket,
On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:27 AM, andrea crotti wrote:
2012/8/15 Chuck Remes li...@chuckremes.com:
Correct, only one socket may bind to a specific address. This is just like a
regular socket.
Well I understood the reason of my pain, the task submitter and the
result socket are both PUSH
On Aug 14, 2012, at 8:10 AM, andrea crotti wrote:
2012/8/14 Pieter Hintjens p...@imatix.com:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM, andrea crotti
andrea.crott...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe an example would be nice to have in the guide or in the examples
directory, what do you think?
Yes, when we
On Aug 13, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Arthur O'Dwyer wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to use ZMQ in what I guess (surprisingly to me) is an
unconventional way. The salient points of our protocol are:
- The connection has only two ends: exactly one client and exactly one server.
- In fact, the labels
On Aug 9, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Arthur O'Dwyer wrote:
I would have posted this on a bug tracker, but there doesn't seem to
be any Issues link on the Github page and the official bug tracker
at zeromq.jira.com is dead, so I figure this mailing list is the best
chance we have of getting the issue
On Aug 8, 2012, at 8:07 AM, andrea crotti wrote:
2012/8/8 Pieter Hintjens p...@imatix.com:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:44 PM, andrea crotti andrea.crott...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nice thanks, XPUB is not mentioned in the guide though, only
http://www.zeromq.org/whitepapers:0mq-3-0-pubsub
It's
On Aug 7, 2012, at 3:39 AM, Dave R. wrote:
Sorry, it looks like what I wrote was not clear. I didn't change the ZMQ
stuff, I'm using the packaged library from NuGet. All I changed was the
example code from the ZMQ guide lruqueue2 example to make the Hello
messages unique. I also set the
On Aug 6, 2012, at 5:01 AM, Pierre Ynard wrote:
Judging by the critical issues on the wiki site, most of them are
associated with 2.2. None of the listed tickets are for 3.2.
Is it time to push 3.2rc1 to 3.2 final?
LIBZMQ-375 doesn't seem fixed in 3.2
It's marked in the bug tracker as
Answers are inline.
On Aug 6, 2012, at 11:18 AM, diffuser78 wrote:
Can someone plz share their experiences around this problem ?
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, diffuser78 diffuse...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am writing a lib that uses zmq. This lib is going to be used in an app that
On Aug 6, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Dave Rutlidge wrote:
I've been trying to write a broker using ZMQ and found that it would
occasionally lock my PC totally, requiring a power-off as the usual
Ctrl-Alt-Del etc, and even a shutdown request by pressing the power button
did nothing.
I tried
On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
Ah, yes. I edited http://www.zeromq.org/topics:planning.
IMO the old roadmap pages can die, or be merged into some kind of
historical change log that covers the major feature changes in each
version.
Good write-up. Very clear.
cr
On Aug 4, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
Hi Chuck,
It's part of the wiki, just has a different CSS that hides some of the
actions. You're site admin so you have access to edit the intro: pages
(they're not editable by everyone). Go to that page and press Ctrl+E,
or use the Edit
I'd like to update this page (http://www.zeromq.org/intro:get-the-software) to
recommend new users of the library start out with 3.2 (release candidate is
fine) instead of 2.2.
How do I modify this page? It isn't part of the wiki that I can see, so my
usual edit this page trickery won't work.
Judging by the critical issues on the wiki site, most of them are associated
with 2.2. None of the listed tickets are for 3.2.
Is it time to push 3.2rc1 to 3.2 final?
cr
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:54 AM, Danil Gazizov wrote:
Hi dudes!
I'm working on logging mechanizm.
The idea is to set logserver as subscriber of main data-process server.
Data-process server publish events, and they must be logged, on other machine.
So, does pub/sub guarantee delivering (while
On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Iggy Philly wrote:
I'm trying to understand the differences between using TCP and IPC between
processes on the same linux host. I've seen various indications that the TCP
and IPC infrastructures are the same so I'm wondering if there is any
significant
On Jul 30, 2012, at 2:05 PM, diffuser78 wrote:
Hi,
From ZMQ guide I see that pub-sub pattern does not offer reliability, i.e.
publisher doesn't know if the subscriber has been consuming messages.
What other pattern would you recommend in pub-sub scenario where a publisher
must know
On Jul 25, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Marc Rossi wrote:
Linux w/ ZMQ 2.2.0
I have a publish function that is called from a thread. This publish
function connects an inproc socket with a socket in another thread.
Since inproc sockets error on a connect call if the other side isn't
setup yet I
On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:49 AM, moteus wrote:
Chuck Remes lists at chuckremes.com writes:
Oh, so the threads are short-lived then. In that case, you should create a
pool of them and have each thread
check out the socket from the pool when it needs to use it and check it
back
in again when
On Jul 17, 2012, at 6:27 AM, moteus wrote:
Hi.
I have some service.
Service creates new thread for each request and call function from .dll to
proceed this request.
I write only .dll and can not change service.
What best method to use REQ/REP sockets over inproc and tcp.
If I understood
Who is in charge of the daily build cluster? I'd like a login to the debian
linux image if that is at all possible. Thanks.
cr
On Jul 2, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Chuck Remes wrote:
I see on the #zeromq.build channel that the ffi-rzmq gem has failures on
Debian linux. I'm the maintainer of that gem
On Jul 10, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Edwin Amsler wrote:
On 10/07/2012 1:59 AM, Paul Colomiets wrote:
Hi Edwin,
The behavior is intentional for pub/sub sockets. If you'd have only
one subscriber you could use push/pull. Push sockets block when reach
high water mark, so are Req sockets.
The
On Jul 9, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Ian Barber ian.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I am confident that we are not passing sockets through threads or
processes.
Could this
On Jul 9, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
Yes, they are, here is the code:
https://github.com/saltstack/salt/blob/develop/salt/minion.py#L470
I do not doubt that I have made a mistake in here
I see that you are unregistering, closing the socket, and then immediately
creating a new
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Edwin Amsler wrote:
There doesn't seem to be anything about how it signals that the high water
mark happened. Unless I didn't read it thoroughly enough.
When a ZMQ_PUB socket enters an exceptional state due to having reached the
high water mark for a
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Edwin Amsler wrote:
I prefer Edwin. I'll make a test case, then report back.
Noted for future posts. We look forward to hearing from you.
cr
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
On Jul 4, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Daniel Krikun wrote:
Hello,
I'm building a service-oriented system. A client sends a request to create
some entity on the server. The server creates the entity and then replies
with the entity's handle, so that the client can send more requests regarding
the
On Jul 4, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Raphael Bauduin wrote:
Hi,
I'm using the ruby zmq bindings in a web application. I regularly get
error message ZMQ::Error: Interrupted system call related to a send.
This is in a Ruby on Rails application served with passenger, which
spawns worker processes. I
I see on the #zeromq.build channel that the ffi-rzmq gem has failures on Debian
linux. I'm the maintainer of that gem and would like to fix those failures. On
my OSX box *and* my Archlinux box, the specs all pass. What version of Debian
Linux (3, 4, 5 or 6) should I install to match the build
On Jul 2, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Anatoly wrote:
ØMQ Crowd,
Reading messages from a socket, placing them on the zmq (PUSH). On the
other side reading messages of off the queue (PULL) and persisting them in to
DB.
If we get millions of messages, ØMQ takes X GB of RAM (since the
Yes, there are differences. The documentation will help you.
cr
On Jun 22, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Diffuser78 wrote:
Hi,
I had a very simply client and server processes. The server pushes say ~1 GB
of data to client. When I used REQ/REP, everything was fine. When I tried the
same program with
On Jun 21, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Diffuser78 wrote:
Hi,
I just started playing with zmq, and I had a question about HWM.
If my socket type is of ZMQ_REP, and if this socket enters an exceptional
state due to HWM reached, I read in the guide that it will drop the reply
message being sent to
On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:23 PM, Diffuser78 wrote:
Thanks, Chuck, for your views and insight on this. I have a fairly newbie
question about the messaging pattern:
In my scenario, App1 (server) pushes say ~10 MB of data to App2 (client)
periodically. In this case, can I make my App1 as REQ and
On May 25, 2012, at 9:24 AM, jonathan.me...@schneider-electric.com
jonathan.me...@schneider-electric.com wrote:
Hello,
I plan to bring ZeroMQ into my codebase to start testing out its pub/sub
capabilities. I had brought in ZeroMQ 2.1 in a former project and found it a
bit painful to
On May 14, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Viet Hoang (Quant Edge) wrote:
When will assertions be removed? If I just remove the assertions myself, will
that compromise anything in the lib? It is better to discard message rather
than crashing the program. We have zeromq working good with our demo system,
Just a note to remind everyone that we are having a 0mq meetup in Chicago this
May 19 through 20.
See the details here: http://www.zeromq.org/event:chicago-2012-05
If you are coming, please please please sign up on that wiki page before May 17
so that your name can be given to building
On May 9, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Steffen Mueller wrote:
Dear all,
I have an application of 0MQ where I have one or multiple server
instances that use a PUSH socket to send messages that must be processed
by any one of potentially many workers. The servers are single-threaded
apart from
On May 9, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Steffen Mueller wrote:
Hi Chuck,
On 05/09/2012 03:57 PM, Chuck Remes wrote:
On May 9, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Steffen Mueller wrote:
I have an application of 0MQ where I have one or multiple server
instances that use a PUSH socket to send messages that must
On May 2, 2012, at 7:28 AM, Paolo Bolzoni wrote:
[snip]
Unfortunately they do not work. It seems the subscriber
cannot read any message. To me the classes seems a
translation in Java of the C files, so I have no idea of
the problem.
I tried listening the wire using wireshare and in the
On May 1, 2012, at 4:51 AM, Daniel Krikun wrote:
Hello,
I have the following code to dispatch incoming messages via inproc transport
in one thread, and to stop the dispatcher from another (main) thread:
void dispatch()
{
zmq::socket_t control_socket_ ( _global_context,
Exactly 3 months ago today, I had a conversation with Pieter about the number
of contributors we would see once Martin Sustrik, et al. left this project. I
was a bit gloomy. Pieter confidently stated that we would have 10-20 active
patchers to libzmq within 3 months time.
He was absolutely
On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:53 AM, Raphael Bauduin wrote:
Hi,
I need a process to send a request to a server, and wait a maximum of
(let's say) 300 milliseconds. If no reply comes in this time span, a
default action should be taken.
Is using a poller the only solution to this? I'm using the
On Apr 20, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Joshua Foster wrote:
If the binding is able to use 2.2.0, you can set the recvTimeOut socket
option instead of using the poller.
So far none of the Ruby bindings support 2.2.0. :(
I'll try and stub in support early next week unless someone beats me to it and
On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Radha Krishna Srimanthula wrote:
Can you please help me with my first qn?
Just to restate - would it be ok to create a socket in a main thread - only
once, perform subscriptions/ unsubscriptions in another, and perform sends on
the yet another thread?
Use a
He was just reiterating that you should use a mutex. A mutex will perform a
full memory barrier for you. I don't know why this community is so caught up on
using the term memory barrier when *in practice* they mean to say mutex.
Just use a mutex properly and all will be well.
Feel free to read
On Apr 19, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Chuck Remes li...@chuckremes.com wrote:
He was just reiterating that you should use a mutex. A mutex will perform a
full memory barrier for you. I don't know why this community is so caught up
on using
On Apr 12, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Antonio Teixeira wrote:
Hello Friends.
I have hitting a wall since i updated to the latest of ZMQ and PyZmq
Assertion failed: ok (mailbox.cpp:84)
I have tried everything i can remember , probably this is a problem in Zmq
and not PyZmq but i wanted to get
On Apr 10, 2012, at 9:42 AM, jonathan.me...@schneider-electric.com
jonathan.me...@schneider-electric.com wrote:
Hello,
I am experimenting with ZeroMQ to switch what used to be a synchronous flow
of message passing to asynchronous. The unit test for this scenario would
send a message, and
On Apr 9, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Marco Trapanese wrote:
Hello,
I'm playing with nzmqt on a simple application.
There are one router and a dozen of dealers. For each dealer I set its
own identity, thus I can send async data in both directions.
Setting an identity has *no* impact on being able
On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:44 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Colin Johnsun colin.a...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with all previous posters, +1 on 2.2. Semver is easy to
understand. You could refactor the code as much as you want but if it
doesn't change the ABI then it
On Apr 4, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Santy, Michael
michael.sa...@dynetics.com wrote:
In theory bindings aim to work with all released versions of 0MQ,
though it's up to each binding group to make this work.
I've been meaning to bring up this
On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
Very nice work. I've backported it to 2.1, it'll go in the next release.
Small point for improvement, please write issues as problems rather
than solutions, so e.g. Send/receive timeouts missing, makes REQ
sockets less useful.
-Pieter
On Apr 3, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Chuck Remes li...@chuckremes.com wrote:
If we are following the rules of semantic versioning, this new feature
should cause a 2.2.0 release. New features that do not break backward
compatibility cause
On Apr 3, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Chuck Remes li...@chuckremes.com wrote:
So, in my opinion, there is no reason to go off our own and develop a new
policy for version numbering. The semantic versioning policy is pretty well
understood
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 Mar 26, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Rajalakshmi Iyer wrote:
Hello,
I understand I have to use zmq_poll which is essentially event-driven. So
that solves problem (1) and (3). However, I still need some comments on point
(2) below.
Thanks!
On 26 March 2012 12:52, Rajalakshmi Iyer
On Mar 26, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Ian Barber wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Chuck Remes li...@chuckremes.com wrote:
That is a far better mechanism than the built-in HWM mechanism. Since it
isn't built in to the library, you would have to add this logic at the
application level
On Mar 26, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Ian Barber wrote:
If 3.1 was an option and you wanted a tasty one socket set hack, you can
communicate credit via subscribe messages back up stream :)
Absolutely. I would love to add this kind of back channel communication so
that we could have credit-based flow
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
This is for routing only, we don't do durable sockets any longer in 3.1. So
it should be OK.
FYI, this patch was rejected by crossroads-io. They prefer it be handled by
closing the offending connection rather than silently allowing it to
1 - 100 of 381 matches
Mail list logo
