You will want to back up any assumptions of performance with reproducible figures. Also you mentioned Felix twice. :)
-Pieter On Feb 3, 2012 11:31 PM, "john skaller" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 04/02/2012, at 7:13 AM, Gleb Peregud wrote: > > > I have a slightly bad feeling about adding additional overhead to > > zeromq core, which is supposed to be as performant as possible. > > The overhead is: > > inline bool thread_safe() const { return thread_safe_flag; } > > if( socket->thread_safe()) // x2 > > This is a pretty small overhead for an operation that is supposed to > send/receive data over a network. The overhead is a greater % > for set/get socket options. > > > > In Erlang erlzmq2 bindings it has been solved in the following way: > > [] > > > Is similar structure possible to implement in Felix? > > Possibly, I don't know. Felix doesn't currently need thread safe sockets, > fibres are always scheduled within a pthread. I didn't provide thread safe > sockets for Felix. > > -- > john skaller > [email protected] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
