Yes that could happen, I would say that would not be considered a deadlock in a classic sense. That's more like a protocol design flaw, you're blocked on a message.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Timothee Besset <[email protected]> wrote: > I've also had deadlock cases where two threads would use several zmq > sockets to communicate with each other (for instance with both a REP/REQ > and a PAIR) > > It's easy in those cases to have deadlocks, unless you use a poll to wait > on all of them at the same time. > > TTimo > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Garrett Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM, A. Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Yes I agree, I've not had a single deadlock in a classic sense since >> using >> > message queues. But this statement is like saying I've hand not a car >> > accident since I've been riding a bike. You can still lock up your code >> but >> > it will not be a classic deadlock. I guess you could incorrectly code >> > something with message queues and have it lock up occasionally. >> >> The one area I keep an eye on in shared-nothing single threaded >> applications is accidentally waiting on one's self -- this is easy to >> do, but also easy to detect and fix! >> >> Garrett >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
