Pieter Hintjens wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Jon Dyte <j...@totient.co.uk> wrote: > > >>> *GRIN* Honestly - I keep running into the same thing every time I start >>> a new up/downstream pair. Caveat: Because I was part of the discussion >>> on the naming, I actively think "don't get this the wrong way around" >>> and proceed to do exactly that :) >>> >> I made exactly the same error doing that test program for Oliver!!! >> > > The direction of the pipeline is now pretty clear, using PUSH/PULL. > That's fine. But we all make mistakes when we write code... > > too true. > The main lesson here seems to be that 0MQ will have to do pattern > verification so that it catches errors like this. > > yes it was suggested earlier and martin has confirmed it's doable . the zmq_init_t is the place for it, as far I can see. I'd have to check if the inproc stuff makes use of that though.
> I.e. in the protocol, the connecting socket has to tell the other peer > what type it is, so the endpoint can reject illegal connections and > the caller can be told about it. > > do you we have a definitive list of which sockets are compatible peers with each other? I am just recalling earlier discussions on the esoteric device usage and I'm stuff minrk/brian gave some strange pairings and then with clever use of the msg_more et al made them participate as though they were another type? Jon _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
