Hi I'm new to zeroMQ and am looking to get started.
So I've been following the instructions on the
http://www.zeromq.org/bindings:java for the Windows x86_64 platform and I'm
stuck on the nmake portion.
I am using a GIT version of jzmq, windows 7 x64, visual studio express
2010. I managed to buil
Please provide a minimal test program that shows the problem.
Thanks
Pieter
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Tsaur, Jiryih
wrote:
> I recently started using zmq and am getting the same error.
>
>
>
> I am using zmq 3.2.2 and built on linux rhel5.
>
>
>
> Anyone know of a version that works with
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Evan Gates wrote:
> IMO the difference is between giving control which normally happens when
> you're done with an object (e.g. zmsg_push()), and creating a new object
> that you will use presently (e.g. zsocket_new()).
Yes, there's a difference between working
I recently started using zmq and am getting the same error.
I am using zmq 3.2.2 and built on linux rhel5.
Anyone know of a version that works with ZMQ_DONTWAIT on recv?
Jiryih Tsaur
This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the pur
See inline:
>> Out of curiosity, why don't calls that take ownership also nullify a
>> reference?
> It would be nicer if they did this but it didn't occur to me. :-)
> I don't like breaking APIs but this seems like a good improvement to
> the CZMQ API so if you want to make those changes, go for
I think even if a method has taken ownership, it should still be legitimate
for the programmer to hold on to the reference till the end of the life
cycle of the object.
Eg, zctx manages destruction of sockets, but we still hold a reference to
the socket.
On Apr 18, 2013 11:33 PM, "Pieter Hintjens"
On that subject are there straightforward ways to tweak inproc latency in
the ZMQ configuration, besides msg and socket options?
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Martin Hurton wrote:
> You have some control over memory allocation when transporting message
> using ypipes.
> See message_pipe_gran
You have some control over memory allocation when transporting message
using ypipes.
See message_pipe_granularity parameter in config.hpp.
- Martin
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Timothee Besset wrote:
> Isn't the memory allocation part of those inproc exchanges blowing away any
> speed advant
I'm using inproc and doing delete after my recv calls. My code is stable and
not crashing, so that stuff must be allocated from somewhere?
I understand the zero copy stuff is on the sender side only, I've been meaning
to ask about it in the inproc context?
TTimo
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 18, 2
I've created an object pool using apache-pool (1.5.4), and I've only been able to implement makeObject and destroyObject methods as I don't know how to validate if sockets are valid/working or not, and don't know if there's really anything to be implemented in the activate/passivate methods.Ref: ht
Hi all,
Just wanted to let you know libzmq master now handles multipart
messages from XSUB to XPUB (previously it did single-part).
https://github.com/hintjens/libzmq/commit/f0cf40
-Pieter
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Timothee Besset wrote:
> Isn't the memory allocation part of those inproc exchanges blowing away any
> speed advantages of the lockless pipes in the first place anyway?
Inproc doesn't copy data, so it can all happen with no memory allocation.
-Pieter
___
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Evan Gates wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why don't calls that take ownership also nullify a
> reference?
It would be nicer if they did this but it didn't occur to me. :-)
I've added this language to CLASS, our style guide:
"A method may take ownership of an object
Isn't the memory allocation part of those inproc exchanges blowing away any
speed advantages of the lockless pipes in the first place anyway?
(I haven't looked at the innards of the implementation)
TTimo
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Martin Hurton wrote:
> > My main question at the moment
> My main question at the moment is about the current implementation of INPROC
> transport.
> Digging it seems like the actual implementation is the class pipe_t, am I
> right?
Yes, producer side writes the message to the pipe and consumer reads
it from it. The pipe is implemented as lockfree on s
Out of curiosity, why don't calls that take ownership also nullify a
reference? For example, after a zmsg_push() the message owns the frame and
will destroy it when the message is destroyed (zmsg_destroy(),
zmsg_send()). Why doesn't this nullify the frame reference? (I personally
just end up doing
Ok, that makes perfect sense now, destroy is overwriting my pointer with
NULL so that I can check that. I'm using the picolisp "native" function
which is working well for all other czmq functions. It's not a problem
anymore, I'm faking it by wrapping my pointer in a one item structure and
passing
Hello Davide,
I'm not certain about the implementation of the inproc in ZMQ but I'm
pretty certain it is using pipes. I'm interested in working on this issue
since I've an MPMC queue implemented using ZMQ inproc and ZMQ_ROUTER and
latency is critical of course. If we can improve latency in this a
Hi,
first of all, congratulation for the amazing ZeroMQ library.
I would like to use ZeroMQ of real time operative systems, In particular
Linux (RT-preempt and later Xenomai) and QNX.
To do this I am planning to do some changes to the core of ZMQ, in
particular:
1) Use O(1) memory allocation.
2)
rbzmq is a C extension. It can be used with MRI or Rubinius (but JRuby no
longer supports C extensions).
ffi-rzmq uses FFI to interface to libzmq so it is supported by *all* of the
Ruby runtimes. I'm the author and may be a bit biased, but it is updated,
tested and used quite a bit more than rb
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Uli Köhler
wrote:
> I started using 0MQ about a month ago and I encountered an issue I can't
> explain.
It's not an issue; you're using it wrong... :) Your code works fine.
You cannot use errno (nor zmq_errno, which wraps it) to detect
success/failure since it'
Hi there!
I started using 0MQ about a month ago and I encountered an issue I can't
explain.
I'm using ZeroMQ 3.2.2 on Ubuntu 12.10 (the issue is also reproducible on
Ubuntu 12.04 and Ubuntu 13.04) x86_64. The CZMQ 1.3.2 selftest passes on my
systems.
I created a minimal example that is basically
Hi,
I am a 0mq newbie. I have the follwoing problem in hand:
I have several client nodes (machines) and one server node.
A client node:
consists of several threads. A thread (say, requester thread) sends a request
and waits (blocks) immediately to receive the reply for that request. So a
r
23 matches
Mail list logo
