On Dec 12, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Michel Pelletier wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Martin Sustrik <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2. The application thread will push massages to the pipe and if the pipe >> is full it will *block*. > >> Thoughts? Does anyone see any problem with this approach? >> > > What would happen if the socket was constructed with a non-blocking > option? Would it set EAGAIN, or should a new error like ERATELIMIT be > set?
If this library is intended to eventually make its way into the kernel, then we don't want to introduce new errno's. I think returning EAGAIN is sufficient. If the programmer *must* know that the send failure occurred due to a rate limiting issue, then perhaps there could be a new socket option to return that information, e.g. zmq_getsockopt(ZMQ_EAGAIN_DETAIL). cr _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
