On Mar 22, 2011, at 16:31, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:08 AM, MinRK <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I use PAIR quite a bit, because many of my small cases really are >> symmetric a<=>b connections (not REQ/REP pattern). Frankly, I can >> easily use XREQ for both sides if PAIR is gone, and it works as long >> as additional connections don't happen, but if they do things will go >> wrong. I'd rather have the error raised by PAIR than weird message >> loss that would result from XREQ. What would be the recommended >> socket type(s) for a symmetric pair of sockets with flexible send/recv >> pattern if PAIR is removed? > > It's unlikely PAIR will be removed if there's proof of active use. > > However, you raise an interesting point. Perhaps it's possible to get > the same results without having a distinct socket type. > > For example, DEALER to DEALER (xreq/xreq) with a restriction of 1 > connection per socket.
That would exactly solve my PAIR cases. > > Martin S. has already discussed adding this ability to limit > connections on a socket. Does this suggest that it would also be possible to query the number of connections? That would be very useful for some cases. > > -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
