On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Gregory Szorc <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems the best strategy today is to not use durable sockets. But, > what if I have no/little control over remote client implementations and > one of these uses durable sockets without realizing the consequences? > All it takes is one client disconnect at the right time and we have > orphaned messages and a memory leak.
The logic around this is basically why durable socket on these types have been removed in 3.0 - the change is big enough it can't be done in the 2.x branches however. I guess the question is whether it's worth adding extra functionality of the type you described or waiting until 3.0 becomes stable. Ian _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
