This is what I currently have right now-it seems to lock up sometimes...
char * exchange_addresses(std::string consumer_topic, std::string
production_topic, std::string toSend) {
mlm_client_t *client = mlm_client_new();
assert(client);
int rc=mlm_client_connect (client, "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999" , 3000,
production_topic.c_str());
assert(rc==0);
//offer a service to the opposite so that their writers can send SET
responses to our request
mlm_client_set_worker(client, consumer_topic.c_str(), "SET");
//Offer a service to the opposite so that their readers will will get GET
messages with the address they want
mlm_client_set_worker(client, production_topic.c_str(), "GET");
//send a request to the opposite using a GET on the production_topic
if (!mlm_client_sendforx(client, consumer_topic.c_str(), "GET",
toSend.c_str(), NULL)) {
std::cout << production_topic << " client sent message" << std::endl;
}
else {
std::cerr << "error sending message" << std::endl;
}
char *get, *origin;
mlm_client_recvx (client, &get, &origin, NULL); //READ A GET Request
from the opposite side
std::cout << production_topic << " got get request: ";
if (get)
std::cout << " get: " << get;
if (origin)
std::cout << " origin: " << origin;
std::cout << std::endl;
zstr_free(&get);
mlm_client_destroy(&client);
return origin;
}
void connectToFrontEnd() {
std::cout << "connectToFrontEnd, exchange_addresses" << std::endl;
char * servrAddr = exchange_addresses("backendEndpoints",
"frontendEndpoints", "inproc://frontend");
std::cout << "frontend got opp addr: " << servrAddr << ", exiting" <<
std::endl;
}
void connectToBackEnd() {
std::cout << "connectToBackEnd, exchange addresses" << std::endl;
char * servrAddr = exchange_addresses("frontendEndpoints",
"backendEndpoints", "inproc://backend");
std::cout << "backend got opp addr: " << servrAddr << ", exiting" <<
std::endl;
}
TEST(ExchangeTest, TestExchangeString) {
//std::thread mlm_thread (mlm_broker);
std::thread fclient(connectToFrontEnd);
std::thread bclient(connectToBackEnd);
//mlm_thread.join();
fclient.join();
bclient.join();
}
TEST(ExchangeTest, TestExchangeMultipleStrings) {
unsigned int numWorkers = 5;
std::list<std::thread *> workersList;
for (unsigned int i=0; i< numWorkers; i++) {
workersList.push_back(new std::thread(connectToFrontEnd));
}
for (unsigned int i=0; i< numWorkers; i++) {
workersList.push_back(new std::thread(connectToBackEnd));
}
for (auto w : workersList)
w->join();
}
Any advice on how to properly use the API is greatly appreciated. I've
worked on this all day, and while I've gotten a lot closer, I still feel
like there's something that I'm missing that I need before I can move
forward. I'm almost there though!
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller <
kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As it turns out, I think that there was some misunderstanding in terms of
> address exchange semantics. I think you thought it necessary to persist the
> messages, hence the requirement for mailboxes, but this address exchange
> service as a use of the broker turns out to actually be used to facilitate
> exchange of IP addresses, therefore allowing direct direct communication.
> Therefore, it's silly to make certain that messages persist even if the
> client on another side leaves, since in fact if a client on the other side
> leaves, the broker should route any address to that specific one, since
> making a connection to the one that left shouldn't or wouldn't go through
> anyway.
>
> Rather, I think now that I understand that a single client can be a worker
> with several subscription possiblities, and that a service request can
> include the actual IP address needed to be exchanged in the first place.
> This simplifies things a lot.
>
> So now it seems that I have a pair of clients exchanging addresses
> reliably via the a service oriented approach. But having bunches of clients
> each providing a service and requesting just one seems to be locking up...
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote:
>
>> There's no limit on mailboxes, and you don't need to consider
>> lifetimes. Consider these like email addresses. Mailboxes will at some
>> point have to be saved to disk (they're memory only now.)
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Is there any limit to the number of mailboxes on the malamute broker?
>> How do
>> > I manage mailbox lifetimes, or is that something that I need to
>> consider?
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> > <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ah, now that I considered it in the context of each side having many
>> >> clients, I can see why having mailboxes is undesirable. You want a
>> service
>> >> to tell a mailbox name in order that it can be retrieved individually,
>> per
>> >> client. I finally understand. Some concepts take a bit to sink in, the
>> ZMQ
>> >> manual had a learning curve. But I like this!
>> >>
>> >> In any case, I'm figuring out how to use the API to do what you said,
>> >> since it was kind of ambiguous. Thanks so much for the help.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Each peer has to have its own mailbox, yes.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >>> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> > Yeah that fixed it!
>> >>> > Now I just have to iron out what precisely is concurrent.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >>> > <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Wait, is it because each of the peers have specified the same
>> mailbox?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >>> >> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> But only one side gets a message from the broker. The other side
>> just
>> >>> >>> freezes.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com>
>> >>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> Sure, it'd work as subjects.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >>> >>>> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>>> > What are the two messages SET and GET that you're talking
>> about?
>> >>> >>>> > Are
>> >>> >>>> > you
>> >>> >>>> > saying that sendfor parameter char * address is "ADDRESS" and
>> >>> >>>> > subject
>> >>> >>>> > is
>> >>> >>>> > "GET" or "SET" depending on whether or not there should be a
>> read,
>> >>> >>>> > with the
>> >>> >>>> > contents being the actual "tcp://some_IP:some_port"? Or
>> actually
>> >>> >>>> > author the
>> >>> >>>> > protocol for brokering where I use actual broker commands SET
>> and
>> >>> >>>> > GET?
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > Is send_for exchangeable for send_forx in this context?
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > I changed it to this, trying to follow mlm_client.c:
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > char * exchange_addresses(std::string consumer_topic,
>> std::string
>> >>> >>>> > production_topic, std::string toSend) {
>> >>> >>>> > mlm_client_t *client_reader = mlm_client_new();
>> >>> >>>> > assert(client_reader);
>> >>> >>>> > mlm_client_t *client_writer = mlm_client_new();
>> >>> >>>> > assert(client_writer);
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > int rc=mlm_client_connect (client_reader,
>> >>> >>>> > "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999" ,
>> >>> >>>> > 3000,
>> >>> >>>> > "ADDRESS");
>> >>> >>>> > assert(rc==0);
>> >>> >>>> > rc=mlm_client_connect (client_writer, "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999"
>> ,
>> >>> >>>> > 3000,
>> >>> >>>> > "");
>> >>> >>>> > assert(rc==0);
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > std::cout << "producing to topic: " << production_topic <<
>> >>> >>>> > std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> > std::cout << "consuming from topic: " << consumer_topic <<
>> >>> >>>> > std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> > if (!mlm_client_sendtox(client_writer, "ADDRESS", "SET",
>> >>> >>>> > toSend.c_str(),
>> >>> >>>> > NULL)) {
>> >>> >>>> > std::cout << "client sent message" << std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> > }
>> >>> >>>> > else {
>> >>> >>>> > std::cerr << "error sending message" << std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> > }
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > char *subject, *content, *attach;
>> >>> >>>> > std::cerr << consumer_topic << " receiving message" <<
>> >>> >>>> > std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> > mlm_client_recvx (client_reader, &subject, &content, &attach,
>> >>> >>>> > NULL);
>> >>> >>>> > mlm_client_destroy(&client_writer);
>> >>> >>>> > mlm_client_destroy(&client_reader);
>> >>> >>>> > std::cout << "received: \"" << subject << "\" :" << content
>> <<
>> >>> >>>> > "."
>> >>> >>>> > <<
>> >>> >>>> > std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> > zstr_free(&subject);
>> >>> >>>> > return content;
>> >>> >>>> > }
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > I get one of the set messages, but
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Pieter Hintjens <
>> p...@imatix.com>
>> >>> >>>> > wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> Sure, it's much more fun if you write this up.
>> >>> >>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >>> >>>> >> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> > I can help you with writing an article :)
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> > I was literally discovery what you were telling me, since
>> >>> >>>> >> > sometimes,
>> >>> >>>> >> > about
>> >>> >>>> >> > 1/4 of the time, it would succeed. What you say
>> rationalizes my
>> >>> >>>> >> > considerations since I was literally writing you an email
>> about
>> >>> >>>> >> > what I
>> >>> >>>> >> > was
>> >>> >>>> >> > witnessing.
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> > Let me try to work out what you're saying, then I can post
>> what
>> >>> >>>> >> > I
>> >>> >>>> >> > established to a public github repo :)
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Pieter Hintjens
>> >>> >>>> >> > <p...@imatix.com>
>> >>> >>>> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> The problem with streams is there's no persistence yet, so
>> >>> >>>> >> >> both
>> >>> >>>> >> >> peers
>> >>> >>>> >> >> have to be present at the same time. A name
>> >>> >>>> >> >> registration/lookup
>> >>> >>>> >> >> service is probably better.
>> >>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> Yes, the set_worker call offers a service. I'd do this:
>> >>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> - offer a service "ADDRESS" using set_worker
>> >>> >>>> >> >> - two messages: SET and GET, each taking a name/value (use
>> >>> >>>> >> >> frames
>> >>> >>>> >> >> or
>> >>> >>>> >> >> any other encoding you like)
>> >>> >>>> >> >> - use the sendfor method to send the request
>> >>> >>>> >> >> - use the sendto method to send the replies, which end in a
>> >>> >>>> >> >> client's
>> >>> >>>> >> >> mailbox
>> >>> >>>> >> >> - read the replies using the recv method
>> >>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> For this to work, peers need to specify a mailbox address
>> in
>> >>> >>>> >> >> the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> connect
>> >>> >>>> >> >> method.
>> >>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> If you like I'll write an article and make examples.
>> >>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> -Pieter
>> >>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >>> >>>> >> >> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> > I got it to work by setting the subscribed topic to
>> >>> >>>> >> >> > "inproc*" on
>> >>> >>>> >> >> > mlm_client_set_worker call.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >>> >>>> >> >> > <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> Ok after looking at mlm_client.c, I have the following:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> Two concurrent calls to exchange addresses with the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> following
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> parameters:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> //thread 1
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> char * servrAddr =
>> exchange_addresses("backendEndpoints",
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> "frontendEndpoints", "inproc://frontend");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> //thread 2
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> char * servrAddr =
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> exchange_addresses("frontendEndpoints",
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> "backendEndpoints", "inproc://backend");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> Where exchange addresses is implemented as:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> char * exchange_addresses(std::string consumer_topic,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> std::string
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> production_topic, std::string toSend) {
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> mlm_client_t *client_reader = mlm_client_new();
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> assert(client_reader);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> mlm_client_t *client_writer = mlm_client_new();
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> assert(client_writer);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> int rc=mlm_client_connect (client_reader,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999"
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> ,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> 3000, "");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> assert(rc==0);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> rc=mlm_client_connect (client_writer,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999"
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> ,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> 3000,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> "");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> assert(rc==0);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> std::cout << "producing to topic: " <<
>> production_topic
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> <<
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> std::cout << "consuming from topic: " <<
>> consumer_topic
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> <<
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> mlm_client_set_worker(client_reader,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> consumer_topic.c_str(),
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> "*");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> if (!mlm_client_sendforx (client_writer,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> production_topic.c_str(),
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> toSend.c_str(), "", NULL))
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> std::cout << "client sent message" << std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> else
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> std::cerr << "error sending message" << std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> char *subject, *content, *attach;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> mlm_client_recvx (client_reader, &subject, &content,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> NULL);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> //<--
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> blocking here
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> mlm_client_destroy(&client_writer);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> mlm_client_destroy(&client_reader);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> std::cout << "received: " << subject << " " <<
>> content <<
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> return content;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> }
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> Problem is, both threads block at mlm_client_recvx... As
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> per
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> example,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> it
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> looks correct.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> Oh you mean with mlm_client_set_worker! Do I do
>> set_worker
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> on
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> each
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> side
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> with different service names? How does a client get a
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> specific
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> service?
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> Service semantics? I don't know what those are...
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> I read what tutorials I think that there are. I have
>> some
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> questions
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> about the how things are forwarded-I want only one to
>> one
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> pairing...
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> I'm not
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> sure if what I'm doing is setting up for publishing
>> and
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> subscriptions. There
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> was a lot of talk about some of the other features in
>> the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> malamute
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> manual/whitepaper, and it's kind of confusing.
>> Basically,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> I
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> just
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> want
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> FCFS
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> exchange of information for mutually requiring
>> parties.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Pieter Hintjens
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> <p...@imatix.com>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> The simplest way to make a lookup service is using
>> the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> service
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> semantics, and the lookup service can talk to the
>> broker
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> over
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> inproc
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> or tcp as it wants (it could be a thread in the same
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> process, or
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> a
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> separate process).
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > So, in order to manage a mutual exchange of address
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > between two
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > concurrent
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > parties, I thought that on each side I would have a
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > producer
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > produce
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > to a
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > topic that the opposite side was subscribed to.
>> That
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > means
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > that
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > each
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > side is
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > both a producer and a consumer.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > I have the two entities running in parallel. The
>> front
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > end
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > client
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > connects
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > to the malamute broker, and subscribes to the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > backendEndpoints
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > topic,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > and
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > then producing it's endpoint to the
>> frontendEndpoints
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > topic.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > The opposite side does the same thing, with the
>> back
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > end
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > subscribing
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > to the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > frontendEndpoints and producing to
>> backendEndpoints.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > The problem is that if the front end and back end
>> are
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > in
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > their
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > own
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > threads
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > then only the thread that completes the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_set_producer
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > and
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_set_consumer call proceed. The one that didn't
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > make it
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > that
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > far
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > will
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > hang at that mlm_set_x pair point...
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > code:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "connectToFrontEnd" << std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *frontend_reader = mlm_client_new();
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > assert(frontend_reader);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *frontend_writer = mlm_client_new();
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > assert(frontend_writer);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > int rc=mlm_client_connect (frontend_reader,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999"
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > ,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > 1000, "reader/secret");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > rc=mlm_client_connect (frontend_writer,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999"
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > ,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > 1000,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "writer/secret");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "frontend mlm clients connected" <<
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_consumer(frontend_reader,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "backendEndpoints",
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "*");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_producer(frontend_writer,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "frontendEndpoints");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "frontend client producers and
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > consumers
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > set" <<
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > The code looks exactly* the same for the backend,
>> but
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > with
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > some
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > variable and
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > other changes.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "connectToBackEnd" << std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *backend_reader = mlm_client_new();
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > assert(backend_reader);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *backend_writer = mlm_client_new();
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > assert(backend_writer);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > int
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > rc=mlm_client_connect(backend_reader,"tcp://
>> 127.0.0.1:9999",
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > 1000,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "reader/secret");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > rc=mlm_client_connect(backend_writer,"tcp://
>> 127.0.0.1:9999",
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > 1000,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "writer/secret");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "backend mlm clients connected" <<
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_consumer(backend_reader,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "frontendEndpoints",
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "*");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_producer(backend_writer,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "backendEndpoints");
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "backend client producers and
>> consumers
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > set" <<
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > std::endl;
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > I only ever will see either "frontend client
>> produces
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > and
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > consumers
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > set" or
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > "backend client producers and consumers set".
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Pieter Hintjens
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > <p...@imatix.com>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> My assumption is that a broker that's doing a lot
>> of
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> service
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> requests
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> won't be showing costs of regular expression
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> matching,
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> compared
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> to
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> workload.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Doron Somech
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> <somdo...@gmail.com>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> I did it in actors and then moved it back into
>> the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> main
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> server
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> as
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> it
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> was complexity for nothing (at that stage). I'd
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> rather
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> design
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> against
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> real use than against theory.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > Don't you worry about the matching performance
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > which
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > will
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > happen
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > on the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > main
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > thread? Also a usage I can see is to use exact
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > matching
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > (string
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > comparison)
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > over regular expression (I usually use exact
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > matching),
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > this
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > is
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > way I
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > think
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > the plugin model fits the service as well.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Pieter Hintjens
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > <p...@imatix.com>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Doron Somech
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> <somdo...@gmail.com>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > So I went over the code, really liked it.
>> Very
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > simple.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Thanks. I like the plugin model, especially
>> neat
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> using
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> CZMQ
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> actors.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > I have a question regarding services, for
>> each
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > stream you
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > are
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > using a
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > dedicate thread (actors) and one thread for
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > managing
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > mailboxes.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > However
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > (if
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > I understood correctly) for services you are
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > doing
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > processing
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > inside
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > server thread, why didn't you use an actor
>> for
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > each
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > service
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > or
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > actor
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > to
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > manage all services? I think the matching of
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > services can
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > be
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > expensive
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > and
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > block the main thread.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> I did it in actors and then moved it back into
>> the
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> main
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> server
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> as
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> it
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> was complexity for nothing (at that stage). I'd
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> rather
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> design
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> against
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> real use than against theory.
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> -Pieter
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >>
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>>> >> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> >>>> >> >> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> >>>> >> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >>>> >> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>>> >> >> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> >>>> >> >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> >>>> >> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>>> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> >>>> >> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> >>>> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >>>> >> >
>> >>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>>> >> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> >>>> >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> >>>> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> >>>> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> >>>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> >>>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> >>>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>> >
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
