When a PUSH socket is closed, messages may still be dropped if there is no PULL socket accepting them, correct?
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Lindley French <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm. In that case, I may have just discovered the one and only time it > makes sense to dynamically allocate a smart pointer. Sending the resulting > raw pointer over inproc would certainly be safe, and memory management > semantics with guaranteed-deletion could be arranged. > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Lindley French <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > 1) Messages will not be moved around with C-style memcpy, etc. I don't >> know >> > how weak_ptr (or shared_ptr) would react to this, but it's a bad idea in >> > general. It can break vtables and stuff like that. I recall reading that >> > inproc doesn't do any copying, but is this an API guarantee or just an >> > implementation detail? >> >> Inproc certainly may copy message contents on sending. It depends on >> the API call you use, and I don't think there's a zero-copy receive >> call at all. >> >> > 2) Messages will not be dropped silently. I think PAIR and PUSH/PULL >> meet >> > this requirement. Please confirm----there is NO WAY for these types to >> drop >> > messages, correct? >> >> This is correct, over inproc. Over TCP messages may be lost when >> underlying connections are broken unexpectedly. >> >> -Pieter >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
