Hi,
As I understand it, calls to zmq_send are supposed to be non-blocking. The
data to send is queued in the background, and zmq takes care of sending the
data when it can. Thus zmq_send should return immediately (unless the
internal queue is full, I'd imagine?).
However, does this rule
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 02:42:48 PM Justin Karneges wrote:
I'm observing the behavior that when I send to a PUSH socket I've set to
bind (as opposed to connect), without any peer existing yet, that the send
call blocks instead of backgrounding.
It seems to be bind-specific. This code
On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 04:40:13 AM Ian Barber wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.comwrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 02:42:48 PM Justin Karneges wrote:
I'm observing the behavior that when I send to a PUSH socket I've set
to bind
Hi,
I'm running workers in different threads of a python app, while the main thread
sleeps. I want to be able to cleanly shutdown the app when ctrl-c is pressed.
As it is now, when ctrl-c is pressed, the main thread receives
KeyboardException. However, blocking zmq calls in the worker
On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:15:10 AM MinRK wrote:
Is this a python peculiarity regarding signal handling? How are people
doing
clean shutdowns on ctrl-c with python?
It's a general Python issue. Python + Threads + Signals = mess.
From the signal doc
If I create a socket with bind, but nobody has connected yet, then I do not
receive POLLOUT events. How can I determine when the socket becomes writable
in an event-driven fashion?
Justin
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:00:22 PM Justin Karneges wrote:
If I create a socket with bind, but nobody has connected yet, then I do not
receive POLLOUT events. How can I determine when the socket becomes
writable in an event-driven fashion?
Sorry, I apologize for the stupid question
On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:38:48 PM Chuck Remes wrote:
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:00:22 PM Justin Karneges wrote:
If I create a socket with bind, but nobody has connected yet, then I do
not receive POLLOUT events. How can I
On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 04:31:35 PM MinRK wrote:
If you are just looking for clean shutdown, you can terminate the Context
from the main thread when it is interrupted, and then blocking calls in
other threads will raise ZMQError(ETERM).
For example: https://gist.github.com/1720387
I apologize for jumping in mid-conversation, but I see two thread-safety
goals:
1) 0MQ has no built-in locks on sockets. Applications may use a socket in
different threads provided the application itself uses its own locks around the
socket accesses.
2) 0MQ has its own locks built-in, so you
Hi folks,
Today I ran into issues where socket connects were stealing ports that my
socket binds needed. I also witnessed what is probably quite rare: a socket
connecting to itself. At least netstat was showing the source and dest ports
for a single localhost connection as the same.
I wondered about this as well. I want to make a worker that does remote
method calls, and it would expose a REQ/REP interface that other workers would
use whenever they want to make a remote call.
Since the work bottleneck is time (waiting for remote server responses), I'd
prefer the worker
ASN.1/BER/DER?
*ducks*
On Saturday, March 31, 2012 04:42:58 PM Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Wolfgang Richter w...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
I think the documentation references ProtoBufs (FAQ does:
http://www.zeromq.org/area:faq), maybe we should add a list of
On Wednesday, May 02, 2012 03:27:42 AM Paul Colomiets wrote:
Ok. Behind the scenes ZMQ_FD, is basically a counter, which wakes up
poll when is non-zero. The counter is reset on each getsockopt ZMQ_EVENTS,
zmq_send and zmq_recv.
The following diagram shows race condition with two sockets A
On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:44:45 PM Paul Colomiets wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
Does this mean that maybe I need to check ZMQ_EVENTS not only after read
indications on the fd, but also after anytime I call zmq_recv() ?
I've not tried
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 01:53:48 PM Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Paul Colomiets p...@colomiets.name wrote:
Can you be more specific, why setting HWM to 1 is a bad thing? Do you
mean, that it smells bad to set HWM to 1 for reliability? Or do you
think that
I've written a Qt-based wrapper to zmq here:
https://github.com/jkarneges/qzmq
There are some similar projects already (zeromqt, nzmqt), but I wanted to do
things a little differently. Maybe people will find it useful.
Today I discovered there is another project already called qzmq, that
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 03:50:57 AM Paul Colomiets wrote:
Hi Justin,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 01:53:48 PM Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Paul Colomiets p...@colomiets.name
wrote:
Can
On Friday, June 29, 2012 06:13:53 AM Paul Colomiets wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
It's really just for functional completeness of my event-driven wrapper.
The only time I can see this coming up in practice is an application
that pushes
On Wednesday, July 04, 2012 05:57:36 PM Whitney Jackson wrote:
Hi,
I'm using the ZMQ_FD getsockopt feature to integrate ZeroMQ into an
event loop that I don't control and don't have the source code for.
This works quite well except when I want to close a ZeroMQ socket.
Since zmq_close is
Stuff I ran into when implementing:
1) Be aware that ZMQ_FD only generates read events. You then check ZMQ_EVENTS
to see what actually happened.
2) You need to check ZMQ_EVENTS in three situations: after ZMQ_FD read event,
after calling zmq_send, and after calling zmq_recv. It was only
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 10:30:55 PM Dmitrijs Palcikovs wrote:
It seems like zmq_send blocks after zmq_bind and before the other side
connects to the endpoint.
For example, the following code:
void *sock = zmq_socket(ctx, ZMQ_PAIR);
zmq_bind(sock, tcp://*:9090);
zmq_msg_t msg;
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 that.
Justin
___
The ZMQ_FD is a special fd you use to get notified of events on a zmq socket.
It is not the actual underlying network socket that receives messages.
Remember a zmq socket is virtual, and under the hood it may be managing many
network sockets (or none at all, if you consider the ipc type).
I
Another behavior that may be acceptable is blocking the sender if all outgoing
queues are full. I believe the only reason it doesn't block today is because
you wouldn't want one slow subscriber causing all other subscribers to stop
receiving messages.
But there may be apps that rely on writes
Hi,
When does a write to ROUTER block? Is it if the identified connection has a
full queue? Does this mean it would be possible to write to the socket in non-
blocking mode with one connection id and get EAGAIN, but then write to the
same socket using a different connection id and succeed, even
and its a shame that 90% of it gets thrown out.
On 21/09/2012 6:22 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
Another behavior that may be acceptable is blocking the sender if all
outgoing queues are full. I believe the only reason it doesn't block
today is because you wouldn't want one slow subscriber
I am also dealing with a file-sending case and want to avoid sending at read
speed for the same reasons. I've decided to use the credits-based flow control
approach Pieter suggested. For pub/sub, you really only need one subscriber
sending credits, but the nice thing about the approach is that
Hi,
I'm using ROUTER-ROUTER connections for one-way communication. How can the
sending peers identify the destination peers? Currently I'm generating peer
ids and telling the senders out of band (using a different socket), but the
destination ROUTER sockets are not yet aware of these ids, so
On Monday, September 24, 2012 04:24:06 PM Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
I'm using ROUTER-ROUTER connections for one-way communication. How can
the sending peers identify the destination peers?
The only sane way I found
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 08:18:03 AM Paul Colomiets wrote:
Hi Justin,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
Protocol flow goes like this:
1) client pushes a start request that gets picked up by one of the
server
instances
2
Hi folks,
I want to share a project I've been working on called Zurl. It's a server with
a ZeroMQ interface that makes outbound HTTP requests. Think of it like the
inverse of Mongrel2 or Zerogw. This is the project I was discussing earlier on
the list that needed two input sockets.
I've made
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:16:15 PM Paul Colomiets wrote:
Hi Justin,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I want to share a project I've been working on called Zurl. It's a server
with a ZeroMQ interface that makes outbound HTTP
Inspired by the PUSH/ROUTER question a moment ago, I wonder if it ought to be
possible to match ROUTER and PULL, for one-way directed communication?
Currently I am using ROUTER-ROUTER for this, and the receiver just ignores
the envelope. Being able to make the receiver PULL seems like it would
message part for all outgoing messages so the socket can filter it.
Please read the guide if this doesn't make sense to you yet. There are lots
of great examples with code.
cr
On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
Inspired by the PUSH/ROUTER question
in both directions.
-Pieter
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
Why not make it allowed in a future version? It doesn't seem any more
unusual than other mixings.
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:32:33 PM Chuck Remes wrote:
No, do not do
to understand the reasoning here.
-Pieter
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
Then how do you justify, for example, the ability to mix REQ and ROUTER?
Is
that just an exception to the rule?
In my opinion, from a design point of view, zmq should either have
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:08:31 AM Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Charles Remes ch...@chuckremes.com wrote:
The names imply the proper pairings. In what world does ROUTER / PULL make
sense from a semantic standpoint?
How does a PULL socket even send a
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:15:09 AM Pieter Hintjens wrote:
You've not identified any problem with using DEALER except it's not
PULL, which seems arbitrary. You can literally replace ZMQ_PULL with
ZMQ_DEALER in your code and it will work the same.
Ah, okay, I did not think of this.
On Monday, December 03, 2012 09:59:12 PM Ian Barber wrote:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:50 PM, mlist user mlist.user8...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 4 December 2012 07:47, Andrew Hume and...@research.att.com wrote:
i'm not sure what the issue is.
if the rate is small and the messages
Writes to PUB never block. If a subscriber's queue is full, then the message
is dropped for that subscriber. If there are no subscribers, the message is
dropped entirely.
Connect vs bind is a matter of which entity should be considered to have
stable availability. For example, if a single
I'm not sure if this is the issue you're having, but be aware that you have to
check ZMQ_EVENTS in *three* scenarios: after zmq_send, after zmq_recv, and
when ZMQ_FD triggers a read event.
On Monday, December 10, 2012 04:39:22 PM CheYi Lin wrote:
I'm using the low level API zmq.h in C,
On Friday, December 14, 2012 12:23:19 AM Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Jovan Kostovski chomb...@gmail.com
wrote:
I know that ZeroMQ supports TLS
shared keys encryption...
It doesn't, yet, unfortunately.
If you need encryption, you will need to either do it at
Hi,
Is it possible that a socket could be determined to be writable but then
actually isn't writable at the time of write? For example, say a connection
exists on a bind socket and ZMQ_POLLOUT is indicated. But then just before
calling zmq_send(), the connection is destroyed. A socket that was
should be able to reproduce it.
Part 2. not documented, again, would need to test to be sure.
Once we have reproducible cases we can see whether these are bugs to
fix, or expected effects to document.
-Pieter
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
Hi
On Sunday, December 30, 2012 01:50:10 PM Marinho Brandao wrote:
well, I'm new using ZeroMQ, in fact I have followed the news since the
first release but never used it in real cases (only testing).
In the project I work, we have a few APIs, using OAuth2.0 and REST/JSON
standards, and now we
Look at zerogw or mongrel2.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 02:06:45 PM crocket wrote:
It turned out that people wouldn't control water plant facility from
outside.
So I won't need an encryption.
But I still want to know if it's possible to connect or bind to a WebSocket.
On Wed, Jan 23,
0mq makes some things practical or more efficient:
- Messaging as a general form of development. Consider inproc workers.
- A semi-standard way of interfacing between apps. Mongrel2 would be a lot
less interesting if it required a broker, IMO.
- MxN or mesh routings are relatively painless to
Bind vs connect is independent of socket type. You can bind a SUB socket and
connect many PUB sockets to it.
So, you could have each service bind a PUB socket and a SUB socket, and then
connect each to all other services' SUB sockets and PUB sockets respectively.
On Sunday, February 17, 2013
On Monday, March 04, 2013 12:19:55 AM Peter Kleiweg wrote:
I am writing a bindings library for ZeroMQ. I am thinking of
hiding the creation and destroying of the context from the user.
It would just create one context at start up of the program, use
it for all sockets, and never destroy the
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:14:09 PM He Jie Xu wrote:
Hi, all
I try zeromq with following code:
import zmq
import random
import time
context = zmq.Context()
socket = context.socket(zmq.PUSH)
socket.bind(ipc://test.sock)
socket.setsockopt(zmq.HWM, 1000)
while True:
zipcode
Hi people,
My Pushpin project seems to be getting a lot of attention on HackerNews:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5516568
I just wanted to mention that under the hood it's a multiprocess ZeroMQ
architecture. Thanks again for the nice lib. :)
Justin
On 06/07/2013 02:02 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Yannick Koehler yann...@koehler.name wrote:
ZMTP doesn't allow multiplexing PUB/SUB and REQ/REP over the same single TCP
connection simulteanously? I thought the Resource concept was about that.
Yes, it will
Hey people,
I'm using zeromq to pipe streams of HTTP around, and recently I figured
I ought to document what I'm doing:
https://github.com/fanout/pushpin/blob/master/doc/zmq-http.md
Maybe this spec could be used by other projects. Or not. I just figured
I'd share it. FWIW, my Zurl project
Hi,
I have a couple of concerns about using REQ.
1) In order to implement timeouts (which I'd think nearly every
application should need), I use the following strategy:
a) If I cannot write to the socket after enough time has passed, then
I consider the request to have failed and I leave
On 07/18/2013 04:09 PM, Steven McCoy wrote:
On 18 July 2013 16:43, Matt Connolly matt.conno...@me.com
mailto:matt.conno...@me.com wrote:
What is the correct way to handle the timeout?
If the REQ socket is in the receive state, the only way it seems to
me is to close the socket
On 07/25/2013 12:28 PM, Yannick Hold-Geoffroy wrote:
Hello everyone,
I've got two questions about router sockets.
First, it seems I must wait for a while after connecting a router socket
before sending data to its newly connected destination using pyzmq.
This simple use case
On 06/17/2013 06:50 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
Hi Justin,
This is pretty neat.
If you want to make this a public document you should fix a few things.
First, I'd recommend using the RFC 2119 language (SHOULD, MAY, MUST,...)
Second, you need to license it in some way. I'd recommend a
On 08/09/2013 10:50 AM, Michael Haberler wrote:
Am 27.06.2013 um 20:58 schrieb Pieter Hintjens p...@imatix.com:
So ZMQ_STREAM is now a usable socket type for TCP clients and servers,
and I've made a test case that shows simple a HTTP ping-pong, in
tests/test_stream.cpp.
I think it's a
Stable release 2.2.2 but the latest in that series is actually 2.2.0.
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
There's NullMQ, although I'm not sure of its status:
https://github.com/progrium/nullmq
In my opinion, all a web application really needs is request/response
and pubsub, and you already have request/response in the form of HTTP.
So, the only thing missing is a one-way (server-client) publish
Hi folks,
What's the latest on the thread-safety of sockets? I know that normal
0MQ practice suggests not using a socket from multiple threads, but I
wonder if this is nonetheless possible, for example by wrapping a mutex
around access.
The reason I ask is I'm exploring the possibility of
On 11/30/2013 10:02 AM, Min RK wrote:
On Nov 30, 2013, at 9:30, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
Great, it sounds like the answer to my question is that it is possible
to use the same socket from different threads provided I do my own
locking. That's perfectly workable. I mainly
Hi folks,
Many realtime applications have a need to display past content as well
as future changes to that content. For example, a news feed application
might subscribe for news updates and then separately query for the most
recent 20 news items for initial display. The order of operations is
On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, artemv zmq wrote:
If the server goes down, and their is an established session, there
is no way to know that without further communication, or no response
where response is expected.
If there is, I would love to know about it.
I found a solution. There's a lib in
On 12/13/2013 04:12 AM, artemv zmq wrote:
Is there a way to tell ZMQ to handle tcp-RST? If remote peer abruptly
goes down OS kernel sends RST to client. Right? So, can ZMQ handle that,
and stop collecting messages inside in-mem queue for the remote peer
which is down.
If a TCP connection is
ZeroMQ does not resend messages, so while the reconnect/queuing logic
will protect you to some degree, you still need to account for message loss.
If you're using REQ then you'll need to timeout the request, otherwise
if a request or response message is lost then you'll never be able to
make a
I'm missing something.
On 12/13/2013 10:24 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
The ZMQ_REQ_RELAXED option on ZeroMQ v4, lets you resend requests.
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
ZeroMQ does not resend messages, so while the reconnect/queuing logic
Yup. It's kind of ironic that TCP is viewed as a reliable protocol
when in practice it barely provides it at all. What it does provide is
automatic redelivery attempts which is quite handy, along with in-order
delivery and flow control. These are great things, but an application
desiring
On 01/05/2014 10:12 PM, Ravir Pandey wrote:
Is there any way to send http request and get response from server.
For Ex. - i want to send request to my http server http://341.23.43.21,
after processing request i need a reply from same server.
How can i achieve this?
You can try using Zurl.
Justin,
I have gone through https://github.com/fanout/zurl. Sounds interesting.
Is there any PHP version available?
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com
mailto:jus...@affinix.com wrote:
On 01/05/2014 10:12 PM, Ravir Pandey wrote
/2014 10:41 PM, Ravir Pandey wrote:
I am not familiar with python :(
Can you please explain a little bit?
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com
mailto:jus...@affinix.com wrote:
Hi Ravir,
You shouldn't need a PHP version of Zurl. Just run the daemon
Oh, and the message you send must be prefixed with a capital 'T'
character. Byte 0 is a T, and byte 1 is the start of the
tnetstring-formatted payload.
On 01/09/2014 01:26 AM, Justin Karneges wrote:
Just connect to Zurl's REQ-handling endpoint (by default, tcp port 5553)
and send a tnetstring
There are a few options:
https://github.com/wttw/zeromqt
https://github.com/jonnydee/nzmqt
https://github.com/jkarneges/qzmq
It sounds like you've downloaded zeromqt. The project should contain
README.markdown.
I am the author of QZmq and can help with it if you'd like.
On 01/26/2014 11:11
Hi Goswin,
On 01/27/2014 03:46 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:34:13PM -0800, Justin Karneges wrote:
There are a few options:
https://github.com/wttw/zeromqt
https://github.com/jonnydee/nzmqt
https://github.com/jkarneges/qzmq
It sounds like you've downloaded
:00 PM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com
mailto:jus...@affinix.com wrote:
Hi Goswin,
On 01/27/2014 03:46 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:34:13PM -0800, Justin Karneges wrote:
There are a few options:
https://github.com/wttw/zeromqt
Hi,
1) ROUTER in program A is set to connect to a bind socket in program B.
2) Both programs are started, and the connection is established.
3) A determines B's socket identity out-of-band, and is able to send
messages to B.
3) B is terminated and the connection is lost.
4) B is started again,
at 10:51 PM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com
mailto:jus...@affinix.com wrote:
Hi,
1) ROUTER in program A is set to connect to a bind socket in program B.
2) Both programs are started, and the connection is established.
3) A determines B's socket identity out-of-band
did not quite get the problem but could this be because (I think)
router is not able to route messages to socket from which it has not
reveived data first...
7.2.2014 22.51 kirjoitti Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com
mailto:jus...@affinix.com:
Hi,
1) ROUTER in program A is set
again until A is restarted also.
A uses ZMQ_ROUTER_MANDATORY to show that the failures are on A's side.
On 02/07/2014 02:16 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
It is my understanding that being able to route requires the socket to
have an identity mapping in its routing table for the peer.
For peers
if the id printed by
the REQ side is different every time.
On 02/07/2014 02:33 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
Here's some small sample code to reproduce the issue:
https://gist.github.com/jkarneges/ab2b1abea1ee4cfc1332
A (ztest1.py) creates REQ and ROUTER sockets. B (ztest2.py) creates REP
an item in the Jira but I'm not sure how. Maybe I
need special access rights? I created an account at least. Also, I see
issues in github too. Which is the right place to log things?
Thanks.
On 02/08/2014 11:53 AM, Justin Karneges wrote:
Here's an even simpler example using REQ/ROUTER:
https
, Ahmet Kakıcı wrote:
It's not about zmq, just imagine someone comes to you and you say him
you are x, after he left someone came too, so without his identity how
will you decide if he is the same person or not?
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com
mailto:jus
be necessary in the case of ROUTER-ROUTER, and ease greatly the
use of this architecture.
And you should have one option to be used by the peer to retrieve and
resend the identity at the next connexion.
Hope it helps,
Laurent.
Le 13/02/2014 23:51, Justin Karneges a écrit :
I'd like to move
On 02/13/2014 02:51 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
Also I tried to log an item in the Jira but I'm not sure how. Maybe I
need special access rights? I created an account at least. Also, I see
issues in github too. Which is the right place to log things?
Still hoping to get clarification
On 02/19/2014 11:26 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
On 02/13/2014 02:51 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
Also I tried to log an item in the Jira but I'm not sure how. Maybe I
need special access rights? I created an account at least. Also, I see
issues in github too. Which is the right place to log
didn't have numbering
problems.)
-Pieter
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
On 02/19/2014 11:26 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
On 02/13/2014 02:51 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
Also I tried to log an item in the Jira but I'm not sure how. Maybe I
need special
If you're using C++, you should be able to get away with using smart
pointer approaches.
I'm personally using Qt which has the best smart pointer approach I've
ever seen (QSharedData). I use inproc sockets to send/recv pointers, but
the application only has to deal with value objects. It's
On 06/03/2014 02:13 PM, Jeremy Im wrote:
We're using 0mq to great success, but we've run into a problem in using
router-router connections; we are using explicit socket identities so
that we can perform addressing from a single 0mq socket (e.g. on the
client, we will connect to multiple
Pubsub is by definition unreliable since messages are dropped if there
are no subscribers.
An argument could be made that ZeroMQ ought to support a reliable
reconnection for known subscribers, so that temporary disconnects
between publisher and subscriber don't result in any lost messages.
I have a stable (in the addressing sense) worker that I want to take
advantage of multiple cores. So, I run N instances of this worker, where
N is the number of cores on the host machine, and each worker binds to
its own socket. Components that wish to make use of this worker service
connect
On 08/05/2014 03:58 AM, bino oetomo wrote:
I need kind of http-to-0MQ bridge
After some google search .. I still have no luck.
Mongrel2 or Zerogw?
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
Hi Tomas,
This does not answer your question at all, but you might be interested
in the Zurl project. It is a 0MQ daemon that does HTTP requests. You can
speak to it with REQ/REP.
https://github.com/fanout/zurl
On 09/08/2014 06:44 PM, Tomas Krajca wrote:
Hi,
I've got a 0MQ-based proxy,
On 09/18/2014 02:23 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 03:55:09PM -0400, Mark Wright wrote:
I have a router-router setup (destination IDs are acquired via a
broadcast/response, similar to the Freelance pattern in the ZMQ book).
I've noticed that if my destinations go
Hi Karthik,
You need to subscribe to a topic, not merely connect. You can
subscribe to an empty string to receive all messages. E.g.:
sub_socket.setsockopt(zmq.SUBSCRIBE, '')
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014, at 04:16 PM, Karthik Sharma wrote:
I want to establish publish subscribe communication between
':
[OFPActionOutput(max_len=65509,port=2)], 'in_port': 1}
self.add_flow(datapath, flow_mod[in_port], flow_mod[dst],
flow_mod[actions])
--- doesn't work? -- gives error NameError: global
name 'in_port' is not defined
Regards,
Karthik.
On 12 October 2014 12:31, Justin Karneges
[1]jus...@affinix.com
Hi Holger,
You've got a good list here.
If you're looking for opinions, I'll say that I'm fond of the first
approach (0), which is to treat pubsub as a best-effort transport. This
is also in spirit with what is discussed in the ZeroMQ guide:
Hi Andre,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014, at 07:14 AM, Andre Caron wrote:
The issue I'm having is with this sequence:
- P1 and P2 discover each other through D;
- P1 connects to P2 and P2 waits for a connection from P1 (direction is
determined by lexicographical ordering of identities, which both peers
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014, at 12:24 PM, Maurice Barnum wrote:
In the 4.0 api documentation for getsockopt, I see this:
As the descriptor is edge triggered, applications must update the state
of ZMQ_EVENTS after each invocation of zmq_send or zmq_recv.
I don't understand what it means to update
The Mongrel2 web server works this way. It converts HTTP requests into
ZeroMQ messages that handlers can process asynchronously. I'd say it's a
legitimate approach. :)
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014, at 12:24 PM, sam pendleton wrote:
if it's a request for a page, maybe that page should be cached by the
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
