On 05/10/2012 12:37 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Steffen Mueller > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Any chance I could have such a functionality? Of course, being able to >> determine whether there are any peers connected would be great, too. > > The standard answer to "can I do funky routing model XYZ over 0MQ" is > "yes, you make it yourself using ROUTER sockets". This is why we > called them that. Particularly, the built-in HWM logic is difficult to > mix with routing and people who try this always end up frustrated. > Happily it is easy to layer on top. > > It looks like you want a combination of reliable service-oriented > queue and credit-based flow control. Read the Guide section on > reliable request reply, in detail. Then read > http://unprotocols.org/blog:15. Mix this together, taste, improve, > repeat.
Frankly, I fail to see what's so funky about not wanting to block the sender if the receiver is restarted, using the queuing of the library[1]. Something as conceptually simple as that can help a great deal in decoupling component reliability in an HA setup if you don't have to guarantee timeliness (which is virtually impossible anyway in a distributed system during a partial failure). Either way, I understand the message (and Chuck's, too). I'll roll my own solution. --Steffen [1] The connect/bind asymmetry that Chuck pointed out might help in my case, but it makes scaling the number of receivers a little more awkward, so I'll have to evaluate the pros and cons carefully. _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
