On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Alexey Ermakov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: >> As a secondary suggestion, the null/block case turns into "subscribe >> to EVERYTHING" which is what 100% of people want when they naively >> write code and omit the filter. > > That would mean completely different semantics for recv() and poll() > for the socket, which would be confusing. Not particularly, poll() would have to make the same assumption, but honestly I don't think treating the null case as "everything" is clean. It's a hack. Better to be 100% consistent. However we have not found any valid use cases for blocking recv() on dead SUB sockets. The one Matt described specifically must side-step the dead SUB socket if it's to work at all. Meaning a "wtf?" assertion in such cases would be the sanest reaction from 0MQ. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
