On Tuesday 22, Pieter Hintjens 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.
How about adding support for only accepting connections with a fixed set of identities? or require all connecting identities to have a common prefix. > Martin S. has already discussed adding this ability to limit > connections on a socket. -- Robert G. Jakabosky _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
