On Friday, June 29, 2012 06:13:53 AM Paul Colomiets wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Justin Karneges <[email protected]> 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.
Wow, silly me working around a non-problem. I was assuming zmq_close() blocked. Thanks for clarifying. Justin _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
