Agreed, that's what he's saying. So where are the semantics of HWM=0 defined? "I want" has never been a valid problem statement in this community.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Justin Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Pieter, > > What he is trying to do is set HWM to 0 so it will block when a network > disconnect occurs. So far, he is saying that is not happening. I asked him to > provide a link to his code and specifically say what is happening and what > are his expectations. > > He is basically saying that when a disconnect occurs and HWM is set to 0, > send() still returns true. He doesn’t want that to occur. > > -- > Justin Cook > > > On Tuesday, 17 December 2013 at 13:44, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > >> HWM=0 does not mean there's no buffering. The TCP buffers will accept >> messages up to a certain size. If you try with larger messages send() >> may behave differently with HWM=0. Also, the queuing strategy depends >> on the socket type. >> >> Can you find a specification somewhere that states what should happen >> in this case, and can you make a test case that proves the software is >> not conforming to the specification? That is a bug. "I am trying edge >> cases and don't understand the results" isn't a bug. >> >> So read the specs (there are RFCs for socket behavior, and man pages) >> carefully and try to make minimal test cases to disprove the code. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
