Ilja, Thanks for the patch... I'd like to get some review from others on the list before we apply this to the stable release.
-Pieter 2011/4/25 Ilja Golshtein <ilej...@narod.ru>: > Patch with (2), (4) and (5) against 0mq 2.1 > 43307455e352769189d427f260c4b48a3a19f7ce > is attached. > > 22.04.2011, 23:29, "Ilja Golshtein" <ilej...@narod.ru>: >> Martin, All, >> >> you are right, there is no 100% similarity with std::string. >> >> Trying to look at the message_t from the same angle we should conclude: >> 1. close() in not const regardless BLOB - it destroys message object. And >> there is no such a method by the way. Did you ever see const destructor? >> 2. copy() is not a const method because it changes the object. Though >> argument of the method should be const message_t *msg_. Initially I was >> confused by copy semantic. If argument were marked as constant I would not! >> 3. move() is not a const method and it's argument is not const* >> 4. size() is undoubtedly const >> 5. good idea to have const and non const data() methods. Absence of >> overloading at C level could be simply ignored. >> 6. const_message_t is logical from C++ standpoint, though I think it worth >> introducing if any performance gain is possible. >> >> Thanks. >> >> 22.04.2011, 00:49, "Martin Sustrik" <sust...@250bpm.com>;: >> >>> Ilja, Andrew, >>> >>> std::string is able to make the reference counting trasparent to the >>> user using CoW semantics. Unfortunately, with zmq_msg_t we don't have >>> this option. >>> >>> The place where the abstraction leaks most is zmq_msg_close() function. >>> It removes one reference from the BLOB (const operation) and if it >>> reaches zero, it deletes the BLOB (non-const operation). >>> >>> The most sensible option seems to be to treat close as non-const >>> operation. The ugly part is the asymmetricity between zmq_msg_copy() >>> which adds a reference and zmq_msg_close() which removes a reference. >>> Former is const operation while later is non-const operation. >>> >>> Another problem is getting a const data pointer from const message >>> object. C doesn't support polymorphism so something like this is not >>> possible: >>> >>> void *zmq_msg_data (zmq_msg_t *msg); >>> const void *zmq_msg_data (const zmq_msg_t *msg); >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> Martin >>> _______________________________________________ >>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> -- >> Best regards, >> Ilja Golshtein. >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > -- > Best regards, > Ilja Golshtein. > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
