On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 14:31 -0400, Bill Torpey wrote: > Thanks Luca! > > From the thread it sounds like the consensus is that you can have > thread-safe or multi-part, but not both, and that client/server > sockets will be in addition to router/dealer sockets, which will not > be deprecated going forward. Is that correct? > > If that’s the case, is it safe to assume that (a) client/server > socket types will continue to be supported going forward, and (b) the > essential property (block on mute) will remain the same? > > Regards, > > Bill
It is going to be supported, yes absolutely - the API might change until it's declared stable, the behaviour too, although it is very very unlikely that a fundamental property like block on mute would be changed at this point. > > On Oct 16, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Luca Boccassi <luca.bocca...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 11:53 -0400, Bill Torpey wrote: > > > Hi All: > > > > > > Without going into too much detail (I’ll save that for another > > > post > > > when I’ve gotten all my ducks in a row), it looks like I’ve found > > > a > > > solution to the problems I’ve been having using different socket > > > types to do inter-thread synchronization, which ends up being > > > client/server sockets over inproc. (Which ironically has nothing > > > to > > > do with their thread-safety, but everything to do with the fact > > > that > > > sends will block until the message can be queued/delivered). > > > > > > I notice the disclaimer that these are drafts and subject to > > > change, > > > etc., so my question is whether there is any expectation around > > > when > > > these socket types will be declared “stable”? > > > > > > Can anyone shed any light on the process needed to move these to > > > stable status, and/or what the timeframe might be? > > > > > > Many thanks in advance for any help! > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Bill Torpey > > > > Documentation is missing, and also there was still recently some > > brainstorming on how to do something akin to multipart in the new > > sockets, which might require API breakages: > > > > https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/2699 > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Luca Boccassi_______________________________________________ > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
