On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Martin Sustrik <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 04/12/2011 04:26 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
>
> > Hmm, industry practice is short option names ("SNDBUF"), so
> > ZMQ_RECONNECT and ZMQ_RECONNECT_MAX would work better.
>
> As the option is not part of POSIX, I have no opinion on this matter.
>
> What do others think? Is shortening the option names worth of it? There
> are couple of other long names out there, e.g. ZMQ_RECOVERY_IVL. Or even
> ZMQ_SUBSCRIBE and ZMQ_UNSUBSCRIBE...
>
>
If we're going with ZMQ_RECOVERY_IVL it makes sense to have
ZMQ_RECONNECT_IVL and ZMQ_RECONNECT_IVL_MAX I think, or ZMQ_RECOVERY +
ZMQ_RECONNECT + ZMQ_RECONNECT_MAX.
Ian
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
