On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Justin Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2012 at 23:16, Paul Colomiets wrote: > > In my opinion it's wrong to provide callback interface for ZMQ_MONITOR > > in scripting languages. > > > > Thoughts? > Scripting language is fairly vague. Python is an interpreted language that > is used in large codebases. What's wrong with providing a callback for > ZMQ_MONITOR? > > MinRK has a valid point. Is it just too much work and/or expensive to put > this on sockets and not the context? It makes 100% sense to put this in > individual sockets versus the entire context. > I don't think it's too much work, since the first implementation did exactly this, if I read correctly. There was an issue with the implementation being made via setsockopt, which prompted a cleaner interface by adding a dedicated method. This was done as zmq_ctx_set_monitor instead of zmq_socket_set_monitor, but I can find no evidence of the reasoning behind this decision. Perhaps that happened on IRC. Re: inproc, I think that makes a certain amount of sense. I've been thinking of various ways to avoid grabbing the GIL in io_threads and I think an approach with inproc can work. Quick question: Are there threadsafety issues when there is more than one io thread? Do I need one inproc socket per io-thread, and if so, how do I make sure I use the right one from the right thread? -MinRK > -- > Justin Cook > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
