I didn't think of 2) - that should work perfectly. A poison pill over inproc transport.
Thanks, Jon -----Original Message----- From: Martin Sustrik [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 27 October 2010 22:34 To: ZeroMQ development list Cc: Jon Rowland Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] Proper way to shutdown cleanly when blocked [Java bindings] Hi Jon, > I'm new to zeromq so please forgive me if this is obvious, but I couldn't > find the answer anywhere. > > I am using the Java bindings and have a pub/sub socket arrangement. My > subscriber listens with recv() in its own thread, blocking when there is no > data. My question is how do I cleanly terminate the blocked subscriber when > the subscription is no longer needed? > > I understand from the docs that a context is thread-safe, but sockets have > thread-affinity. So I assume that I shouldn't call close() on the socket from > another thread to break the blocked call. The only solution I've found so far > is to call term() on the context. This works, but means I have to have a > separate context for each subscriber which I don't think is what's intended. > > What is the proper pattern for this? Two use cases: 1. If you are shutting down the process, you should call zmq_term which will in turn cause all blocking calls to return with ETERM error. 2. If you want to unblock only a single thread, use inproc transport to send it an "unblock" message. The destination thread can use zmq_poll to wait for either a new business message or an "unblock" message. Martin _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
