I have no use case to exhibit. I agree with you that if it is not
desirable nor usefull, it should be impossible.
Le 21/09/2013 11:42, Pieter Hintjens a écrit :
What is the use case for switching off security? I mean, do we have a
concrete example where this is necessary? If not, I'd recommend the
pattern where one socket has one configured security level, period.
The risk of confusion and error is otherwise much higher ("I want
CURVE on this tcp:// endpoint, but PLAIN on this icp:// endpoint").
I was in fact thinking of making it impossible to remove security on a
socket, once set. That may be too extreme.
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Laurent Alebarde <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Pieter,
After some thinking, I think the following would be nice to switch off
security :
BEFORE :
int as_server = 1;
rc = zmq_setsockopt (server, ZMQ_PARANO_SERVER, &as_server, sizeof (int));
// perform some CURVE exchanges
// remove security
int as_server = 0;
rc = zmq_setsockopt (server, ZMQ_PARANO_SERVER, &as_server, sizeof (int));
// What about the client ? Can the communication continue on this socket
with no action on the client side ?
// as_server = value; in options.cpp makes me conclude communications are
stopped since it becomes a client ?
AFTER :
rc = zmq_setsockopt (server, ZMQ_PARANO_SERVER);
// perform some CURVE exchanges
// remove security, or why not, switch to another mechanism
rc = zmq_setsockopt (server, ZMQ_NULL_SERVER);
What do you think about it ?
Cheers,
Laurent.
Le 17/09/2013 14:40, Pieter Hintjens a écrit :
I agree about switching off security, it should be explicit...
_______________________________________________
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
