On Oct 12, 2012 6:32 PM, "andrea crotti" <[email protected]> wrote:
> But why double binding on IPC doesn't fail, when should that be a good idea? The code explicitly overrides an existing binding on an IPC endpoint so it can recover after a crashed process. There's been discussion before over whether this is the right strategy or not. For me, the problem is that it's inconsistent with other transports (as you've found). We expect binding to be exclusive. If I had designed this I'd probably give applications an explicit way to recover after a crash, but reject a second attempt to bind to the same IPC endpoint. Note that the current behavior is NOT documented anywhere, so we are free to change it. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
