On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:49 PM, john skaller wrote: > > On 03/02/2012, at 7:36 AM, Chuck Remes wrote: > >> >> On Feb 2, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Chuck Remes <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> As far as I can see, you haven't even finished your Felix bindings but you >>>> are participating in at least 3 threads on this list with very strong >>>> opinions on how to change libzmq. >>> >>> Oh, I think you're explaining it wrong... :-) >>> >>> We welcome all patches. >> >> Following your lead on this, all I can say at this point is that I think >> it's very difficult to create a patch that does what Mr. Skaller suggests. >> Actually, it's probably impossible. > > I know it's difficult sometimes to explain negative things, but can you > indicate > why, when one respondent considers wrapping the API with locks is easy enough, > you consider simply embedding the locking inside the functions impossible?
I can't imagine how it would be done cleanly. I haven't thought about it as deeply as you, but in my experience this will be very difficult if not impossible to achieve. I welcome being proven wrong. :) > Of course I'm not even going to look at the code if there's no demand for > thread safe sockets. I have yet to see anyone in this thread demand it. This lack of demand may yet save you from the work! > I also asked a question earlier that didn't seem to get answered: what is the > attitude introducing a dependence on a foreign library? (Source can be > included > in zmq without licence issues). In this case, Judy, since that determines the > overhead. I am not a license (or a British licence) expert. I'll defer to others to chime in. cr _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
