On 17/02/2012, at 9:05 AM, Chuck Remes wrote: > On Feb 16, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Does anyone have a valid use case for thread-safe sockets? It seems >> that the semantics are fuzzy and using this would lead to poor design. >> What happens if two threads are polling the same sockets, but one >> message arrives? > > zmq_poll() would probably need to be modified to disallow multiple threads > from polling. Alternately, zmq_poll() would need to disallow a poll_item list > that contained a socket that is already a member of another call to > zmq_poll() from another thread. > > Ugly. Error prone. I don't see how this could work well without some hacks. > And now "thread safety" would generate a shit-ton of additional questions > about why zmq_poll() was so strict, broken, etc.
No need to change it at all. It is the same as now: if you misuse a feature, you can't expect reliable results. The difference is now you get unexpected results instead of a segfault. -- john skaller [email protected] _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
