Hi Justin, On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Justin Karneges <jus...@affinix.com> wrote: > It's really just for functional completeness of my event-driven wrapper. The > only time I can see this coming up in practice is an application that pushes a > message just before exiting. > > For now, I set ZMQ_LINGER to 0 when a socket object is destroyed, making the > above application impossible to create. What I'm thinking of doing now is > offering an alternate, blocking-based shutdown method. This would violate the > spirit of my wrapper, but may work well enough for apps that finish with a > single socket doing a write-and-exit. >
I think you should just set linger and use it. zmq_close() doesn't block. The zmq_term() blocks. And usually starting an application has much bigger overhead than sending a message. So in the case of starting application, doing request(send) and shutting down, this delay is probably negligible (unless your data is too big and/or network is overloaded). -- Paul _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
