On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > > Changed on June 17th... it seems to me the original name and semantics > were good, and the June 17 change broke them without real > argumentation. Perhaps we can enforce the C4 "Development Process" > rules a little harder. Every pull request with an issue that explains > the problem it's solving. >
Yeah, I have no problem going back to EHOSTUNREACH. Looking back at the PR, the idea of the change was pretty much precisely to allow a blocking send to a currently disconnected host (which is now what you're running up against from the other perspective) - that still does seem like good, developer friendly behaviour in many cases, but given this is a default-to-off option, I would be inclined to let the app handle it.
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
