Couldn’t this be already solved by having the main thread simply close the socket?
Sockets are supposed to be only used on a single thread, but I understood the zmq_term would close the sockets anyway. The result would be that calls to send or receive on the socket would return an error code. Alternately, I thought you could use a PAIR socket to send a message from the main thread to the working thread and use that to signal the working thread to close the other socket and end processing. (i.e.: poll on both sockets). I guess it depends if you want this thread shutdown to only happen once and finish everything, or if other parts of your app need to keep working. -Matt On 11 Sep 2013, at 12:31 am, [email protected] wrote: > Hi All, > > I've just implemented a non-blocking shutdown command name zmq_ctx_shutdown > and am concerned about the name. This is an optional command that can be > used when you want to shut down a context that will unblock any blocked > operations on other threads but will not then block waiting for all sockets > to be closed. > > More details are in the pull request here: > https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/650. > > So do people have any comments on the name? > > Ric. > > > > > > =========================================================== > The information in this email is confidential, and is intended solely for the > addressee(s). > Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized and therefore prohibited. > If you are > not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, > distributing or taking > any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly > prohibited and may be unlawful. > =========================================================== > > _______________________________________________ > 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
