But how is this different from network or remote host queuing/dropping
messages?
Sending queued messages doesn't really guarantee delivery of messages.
This gets even worse as TCP sends RST (ECONNRESET) on receiving data
to a closed socket. In http world they work around this by sender
doing a half close, receiver reading EOF and closing its end.
On 7/6/10, Martin Lucina <m...@kotelna.sk> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> while implementing a 0MQ architecture which needs to dynamically create and
> destroy sockets during operation I ran into the current behaviour of
> zmq_close() being semantically different from the standard close() system
> call.
>
> Consider a scenario where we wish to send a bunch of messages, then close
> the socket:
>
> zmq_send (s, ...)
> zmq_send (s, ...)
> zmq_send (s, ...)
> zmq_close (s)
>
> The current behaviour is that zmq_close() will discard any messages which
> have been queued ("sent") with zmq_send() but have not yet been pushed out
> to the network. Contrast this with the behaviour of the close() system call
> on a standard socket where the call means "please make this socket go away,
> but finish sending any outstanding data on it asynchronously if you
> can"[1].
>
> In my opinion the proper solution is to use the same semantics as the
> close() system call, in other words, zmq_close() shall invalidate the
> socket from the caller's point of view so no further operations may be
> performed on it, but 0MQ shall send any outstanding messages in the
> background *as long as a endpoint for those messages still exists* before
> destroying the socket "for real".
>
> This would mean a second change to the API which would make zmq_term() a
> blocking call, since it would need to wait until all outstanding messages
> are sent. The analogous functionality for the close() system call is
> handled by the OS kernel -- obviously if the OS shuts down then data will
> be lost.
>
> The downside is that zmq_term() could freeze for an arbitrary amount of
> time if the remote end is "stuck". For applications where this is
> undesirable it would mean adding a "KILL" flag or separate zmq_term_kill()
> function which means "we don't care, really go away now".
>
> Please let me know your opinions on this change; ultimately I think it's
> the right way to go especially if OS integration of 0MQ sockets is (a long
> way) down the road.
>
> -mato
>
> [1] This behaviour can be changed using the SO_LINGER option, we'd probably
> want to implement a similar option for 0MQ sockets.
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
