On 7/7/2010, "Pieter Hintjens" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Does anyone see problems with this approach? > >Sorry, for some reason Mato's original email slipped past me... > >Mato, +1 on making zmq_term a blocking call.
> I'd probably make >zmq_close a blocking call as well, and offer a socket option to >disable this per socket. Read up on the manuals for close() and setsockopt(). Following the principle of least surprise and consistency with standard sockets, zmq_close() should not be a blocking call by default since close() isn't either. As I mentioned in my original email you can alter the default behaviour of close() on sockets to be blocking, or even to do roughly what zmq_close() does now by manipulating the SO_LINGER socket option. Now, I've never actually seen any code that uses SO_LINGER but if enough people want that then it could be implemented for 0MQ sockets. >Do we have use cases for applications that need to kill 0MQ right >away? I'd suggest that this can be done e.g. by destroying the >context and not calling zmq_term(). zmq_term() is the only way to destroy a context at the moment. -mato _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
