On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:44 AM, john skaller wrote: > > On 04/02/2012, at 3:19 AM, Chuck Remes wrote: > >> >> On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:05 AM, john skaller wrote: >> >>> >>>> A mutex works fine with a 0mq socket so adding one to the socket itself >>>> would also work. I just don't think it would perform well plus everyone >>>> would have to pay that price even if they didn't need it. Yuck. >>> >>> I have implemented (but not tested) thread safe sockets, available in Pull >>> request. >> >> You're lucky that the lack of tests isn't a problem for merging to master. > > Heck no! Its a "bug" in ZMQ that there aren't extensive regression tests. > That "F" system has hundreds of tests. > > I am working on a test harness which will allow testing multi-process test > cases, which are needed for 0MQ: eg a client and server as separate > processes. Without that, automated testing is impossible. > > The first cut of this code is written, but it crashes sporadically and at > present > I'm trying to find out why. Yes its probably a bug in that "F" system :)
A test harness will be a very nice and very welcome addition to the project. I took a crack at it myself about 6 months ago but my C/C++ skills have eroded too far. >> We'll let the community decide. In my role as a maintainer, I have no >> opinion on patches. :) > > In your role as Chuck I'm sure you do :) In my personal opinion, it sounds like an OK patch. If people don't use the new api call to allocate their context, they pay no penalty. Assuming that's the case, then I actually kind of like it. > I'd be interested in any performance comparisons. The patch is sure to slow > 0MQ > down (for people not using the feature) but I have no idea how much. I have > no particular > need for this patch myself. I also don't have any serious code base to test > it against. Kind of odd that you wrote the patch if you don't even need it. I think I'm back to confusion about your goals in this message thread regarding libzmq & Felix. > I don't mind if the patch is reverted (though the reorganisation of the C API > should > be preserved, i.e. the first commit). It may get reverted by someone else with an opinion. > However without it no one can experiment > so its hard to get any real experience to make a judgement. It only took a > couple > of hours. Agreed. Opinions are hard to form without data. Your patch gives us the opportunity to collect that data and make an informed decision. cr _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
