ØMQ still seems to follow 2.0 functionality for zmq_close on PUB sockets,
such that in remote_thr the sockets get reaped by zmq_term instead of left
to linger.
Attached is an awful hack to ensure it attains at the time calculated by the
provided rate limit. At least it makes sense even if it is
Dear Dhammika and Chuck,
I am trying to use an XREP socket as a PUB socket with publisher side
filtering. In our case we dont need multiple subscriptions from a single
sub-socket, so we are trying to use XREQ sockets as sinks and XREP socket
as router as discussed in the guide - Advanced Stuff
Hi Chuck,
After reading through Martin's responses, I think I see his dilemma.
It appears the dilemma is that while zmq_term() might atomically set
a flag indicating the socket is closed and begin deallocating its
resources, a socket may be in the midst of doing some work that is
already
On 12/02/2010 09:05 AM, Steven McCoy wrote:
ØMQ still seems to follow 2.0 functionality for zmq_close on PUB
sockets, such that in remote_thr the sockets get reaped by zmq_term
instead of left to linger.
Attached is an awful hack to ensure it attains at the time calculated by
the provided
On 2 December 2010 18:17, Martin Sustrik sust...@250bpm.com wrote:
On 12/02/2010 09:05 AM, Steven McCoy wrote:
ØMQ still seems to follow 2.0 functionality for zmq_close on PUB
sockets, such that in remote_thr the sockets get reaped by zmq_term
instead of left to linger.
Attached is an
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Chris Patti cpa...@gmail.com wrote:
Folks;
I realize that I'm dealing with an edge case here, CentOS 4 is long in
the tooth to say the least, but that's the environment we're stuck
with for the moment at my work place.
I get this identical error when building
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Praveen Baratam
praveen.baratam+...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Dhammika and Chuck,
I am trying to use an XREP socket as a PUB socket with publisher side
filtering. In our case we dont need multiple subscriptions from a single
sub-socket, so we are trying to use XREQ
Martin,
If sockets are not in a critical section, can zmq_term not perform
single-bit changes safely anyhow?
-Pieter
On 2 Dec 2010 10:55, Martin Sustrik sust...@250bpm.com wrote:
Hi Chuck,
After reading through Martin's responses, I think I see his dilemma.
It appears the dilemma is that
On 11/30/2010 03:51 PM, Martin Lucina wrote:
marcelo.can...@gmail.com said:
2010/10/28 Mikael Helbo Kjærm...@designtech.dk
... I could really use an IPC solution for Windows. ...
I would love to see this too. I understand that the problems with
implementing
IPC on Windows are
Gday,
I'm new to 0MQ and my first attempt at using it is stuck. zmq_connect() for
a SUB socket is failing with errno == 22.
Code is here: http://pastebin.com/HctDf64J
Compile with: g++ -l zmq -o zmq_test file.cpp
Run publisher with: ./zmq_test pub tcp://127.0.0.1:8000
Seems to work.
Run
On 3 December 2010 07:47, Mikko Koppanen mikko.koppa...@gmail.com wrote:
$ ./Debug/zmq_test sub tcp://127.0.0.0.1:8000
Starting subscriber for tcp://127.0.0.0.1:8000
calling zmq_socket
connecting to tcp://127.0.0.0.1:8000
zmq_connect error: (22) Invalid argument
Hello,
it seems that
On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Jay Banyer wrote:
Gday,
I'm new to 0MQ and my first attempt at using it is stuck. zmq_connect() for a
SUB socket is failing with errno == 22.
Code is here: http://pastebin.com/HctDf64J
Compile with: g++ -l zmq -o zmq_test file.cpp
Run publisher with:
On 3 December 2010 08:43, Martin Sustrik sust...@250bpm.com wrote:
On 12/02/2010 10:30 PM, Chuck Remes wrote:
zmq version: 2.0.6beta.dfsg-2
Aside from the typo, try running a later version like 2.0.10 or the
recent 2.1.0 beta release.
Yes. There used to be a bug in the past where IPv6
My user name on git-hub is persan-
/Regards
/Per Sandberg
---
-- Copyright (c) 2010 Per Sandberg --
--
Hi Martin,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Martin Sustrik sust...@250bpm.com wrote:
Dhammika,
I donno, may be we should simplify this.
Why don't we add a refcount?
As a quick workaround -- yes. Do you have a patch for that kind of solution?
However, thinking about it conceptually, the
Why would it even wait? The socket can catch the eterm flag at any point, it
is asynchronous between the two threads.
- Pieter
On 2 Dec 2010 20:50, Martin Sustrik sust...@250bpm.com wrote:
Hi Pieter,
If sockets are not in a critical section, can zmq_term not perform
single-bit changes safely
Pieter,
It has to flush the messages from that socket to guarantee that all
messages sent before ETERM are actually pushed to the network.
However, the socket has to be protected somehow, because if socket
thread sends a message and term thread flushes the messages at the same
time they are
17 matches
Mail list logo
