It's unclear what problem you're experiencing. What side is receiving a NULL greeting? When?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Laurent Alebarde <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, that's what I did actually: > > Client (DEALER, CURVE) --------- (STREAM) Proxy (STREAM) ------------ > (CURVE, DEALER) Worker > > The proxy works as a ROUTER/ROUTER since it receives the identity of both > client and server on each side. I first register the workers and then for > the first message of a client, I pair its identity with the one of a worker, > so that the same client is always routed to the same worker. > > To ease the test, I have just one client and one worker. > > But here, I did not recall the curve proxy topic since the problem arise > before the handcheck. > > > Le 06/12/2013 14:01, Pieter Hintjens a écrit : > > Please read my previous emails about proxying the CURVE handshake. > What I said still applies. The proxy has to parse the client's CURVE > commands and reply with valid CURVE commands. Using a STREAM socket it > can read the raw frames but then MUST pass them onto the worker, which > will generate the valid replies, which the proxy must then send back > to the client. > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Laurent Alebarde <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Devs, > > I have connected a CURVE-DEALER socket with a ZMQ_STREAM one. Since > ZMQ-STREAM is not a mechanism declared in stream_engine, I don't expect it > creates any mechanism object. > > But, if I have not make mistakes, when the CURVE-DEALER socket sends its > greeting, which includes "CURVE", then stream_engine creates an unexpected > curve_client_t object. I assume this object is related to the ZMQ-STREAM > socket since the options are the default ones, while I defined an identity > to the CURVE-DEALER socket. > > On the other side, a "NULL" greeting is received, I assume onto the > CURVE-DEALER socket from the ZMQ-STREAM socket, which is also not expected I > think. > > test_stream.cpp passes but does it pass only because it is a NULL to STREAM > communication ? > > If this is true, I think it is not a desirable behaviour. > > Are you aware of that ? Do you confirm ? What do you think about it ? > > Cheers, > > > Laurent. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
