Huh, that's odd. I haven't looked at your code too closely until now, and
yeah, given that you added the filtering in session_base, it would appear I
should see these everywhere! I'm currently fixing a giant mess of many
versions of ZMQ in the cloud, and it's hard to keep track of it all.
Looking
My understanding is that on Linux, inproc is implemented using shared
memory and ipc is implemented using named pipes. Is there a reason why
inter-process communication via shared memory is not supported?
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
Hi ØMQ folks, I'm Heungsub Lee.
I tried to upgrade zeromq to 4.1.2 with --with-pgm option. When I
installed older version (actually =4.1.0) it installed bundled OpenPGM
together. But 4.1.2 looks like finding OpenPGM from the system.
zeromq/foreign/openpgm, which is the bundled OpenPGM, was
Oh, good. Because the names DEALER and ROUTER have always been mental speed
bumps for me.
Bob
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Pieter Hintjens p...@imatix.com wrote:
These are experimental new versions of DEALER and ROUTER, with some
semantics tightened up. Undocumented as yet. Please
Yes, there's a reason: no-one has made it. It should be doable if you
need faster IPC.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Johnson
thomas.j.john...@gmail.com wrote:
My understanding is that on Linux, inproc is implemented using shared memory
and ipc is implemented using named pipes. Is there
These are experimental new versions of DEALER and ROUTER, with some
semantics tightened up. Undocumented as yet. Please disregard :)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Chuck Price ch...@peloton-tech.com wrote:
We stumbled across the socket types ZMQ_CLIENT and ZMQ_SERVER in the code,
but
Hi,
it is not recommended to use memcopied structs in C (or even worse classes in
C++) as an exchanged format. There are many reasons why this can go wrong:
- You do not consider different byte-order
- The size of int,short etc. is not defined in C/C++. If you run the
