On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Martin Lucina <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Ian! > > Thanks for the patch! > > You asked me to review it, so here goes... > Thanks Mato, I'll update the patch with your suggestions. > I guess you wanted to use the ZMQ_ENDPOINT_MAX define here rather than > hardcoding 256? > Yep, will do. I'm not sure I understand what the business with "Allow 0 specifically" is > about? > As far as I could see atoi might return zero if the port is invalid, so rather than working but potentially confusing code on passing an system assigned port, the patch looks specifically for * or 0 and checks that, so the other cases will cause an EINVAL. > I don't see how this can be solved. Any ideas? Off the top of my head > trawling through all local interface IP addresses and returning a list of > endpoints but that rapidly becomes pretty horrible. > Yep, I think this is an issue that doesn't have a pleasant solution. I think the functionality is useful without resolving the interface in that case - the OP I think wanted just the port for example. I think that the functionality is useful even with this restriction, and the documentation can reflect this case. > In my opinion this is a major win for libzmq, and is an often misunderstood > aspect of the library. You don't notice it because it "just works". Many > times, the reason something has *not* been implemented is that we'd rather > have no implementation than a theoretically unsound one. > Ack, I think this is a good principle, and I can see the questions it brings to this case. Ian
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
