socket_shutdown maybe? Would this
> be useful to people?
>
> Ric.
>
> "Matt Connolly" ---10/09/2013 11:24:41 PM---Couldn’t this be
> already solved by having the main thread simply close the socket? Sockets are
> suppo
>
> From: "Matt Connolly"
>
me sort of zmq_socket_shutdown maybe? Would this be
useful to people?
Ric.
From: "Matt Connolly"
To: "ZeroMQ development list" ,
Date: 10/09/2013 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] non-blocking shutdown command
Sent by:zeromq-dev-boun...@lists.zeromq.org
Coul
Couldn’t this be already solved by having the main thread simply close the
socket?
Sockets are supposed to be only used on a single thread, but I understood the
zmq_term would close the sockets anyway. The result would be that calls to send
or receive on the socket would return an error code.
Hi All,
I've just implemented a non-blocking shutdown command name zmq_ctx_shutdown and
am concerned about the name. This is an optional command that can be
used when you want to shut down a context that will unblock any blocked
operations on other threads but will not then block waiting for
