On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jess Morecroft <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Re the responsibility of discarding messages, I tend to disagree. > Unless i'm mistaken we're basically talking about a situation where I > can create a sub socket, connect to a bunch of publishers, not > subscribe to a single topic, but be assured a memory explosion if I do > not at some point call recv or poll (which I have no incentive to do > as I'm not subscribed to anything). This behaviour to me at least was > not obvious - I assumed that sub message filtering would like hwm > enforcement just happen behind the scenes and not need to be prompted > by a call to recv or poll. > > This unexpected requirement to service the queue to some degree at various points has been bought up before, and I think it is a fair concern. A periodic noblock recv would fix the issue, but I agree this is not a very clear way of handling the issue - though hopefully as 3.1 moves towards stable the issue will recede somewhat. Ian
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
