I am by far no expert in 0MQ, but actually the question of thread-safe socket is no question any more for me. It has been written in the documentation in a clear way, that one should not use sockets from different threads. Over the last weeks - and due to a question from me - it was in a more detailed way explained, what is allowed to do and what not. These informations should be added to the documentation.
I've no problem to follow this guideline in my Smalltalk language binding. Its ok and I can work with it and I offer a thread safe interface to the 0MQ library. When people starts working around my "official" language binding - ok, then its their fault. I can not and would not like to forbid this - I assume, that others also might know how to use the 0MQ library. Therefore: leave the decision to the end user and give them enough information so that it can make their own decisions based o this free available information. I like 0MQ because it has such a small C-level API and it is easy to use. The examples guides are well done and show how to use it. Perhaps thread-safe sockets are a nice marketing idea. Some people might think, that this is an absolute must to have - and without that a library is not a reliable piece of software. It is perhaps the same as thinking, that dynamic typed languages are a regressive step in CS. At least this last idea is simply wrong and has been shown over the last 50 years in CS. > There is an analogue in Posix: optional locking. It's fairly useless. > Because anyone can write into a locked region of a file by ignoring > the locks. This optional locking is quite a good design pattern: Perhaps the base system contains an error and the strict locking prevents you from doing the last emergency execution step. Its then always good to have the choice (thats the keyword in building libraries) of turning of this locking ... Marten Am 17.02.2012 02:56, schrieb john skaller: > > It's not entirely useless but in todays world software is so complex > people want rigid guarantees of correctness for some things, because > there are always a heap of other things where there are no assurances: > [casts in C .. dynamic typing in web applications OMG what a regressive > step in CS] _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
