On 05/17/2011 09:36 AM, Blair Bethwaite wrote: > On 17 May 2011 17:10, Martin Sustrik<[email protected]> wrote: >> IMHO that kind of thing is so complex that it's not even worth trying, >> but you are free to give it a shot. > > This may be a fair opinion, but there is a problem with this response > in terms of development going forward. Does this indicate that future > work (e.g. in master by you, Martin) wouldn't encompass handling OOM > situations? If so, it would seem there is little point doing the work > in the first place...
If I get functional patches, I will sure apply them. But I am a bit skeptical about the whole thing as with OOM even the recovery measures are likely to fail because of OOM :) As explained in previous email, I believe that the only real solution is to never hit OOM in the first place. Martin _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
