On 01/07/2011 02:14 AM, Douglas Creager wrote: >>> Please, do check whether everyting works as expected. >> >> Hm, presumably, some more patching is needed to cover the cases >> when one or both hwms/swaps is infinite. Can you possibly do that? > > I tried this patch out, and it works as expected. For infinite HWMs, > I think it works, depending on what we want the behavior to be. If > one side has a finite HWM, and the other an infinite, and we want the > finite one to take precedence, then it works: X+0 = X. And two > infinite HWMs stay infinite: 0+0=0. > > That said, the more I think about this, the more I'm not sure about > it. With this patch in place, a PULL inproc socket can affect the > HWM buffer that's seen by the PUSH socket on the other side. For a > TCP connection, it can't: there's an HWM buffer on the PULL side, but > since it's a PULL socket, it's ignored. And I don't think that's > something that breaking HWM into SNDHWM/RCVHWM would fix, because the > PULL socket could still affect the PUSH's SNDHWM by setting its > RCVHWM. Am I missing something obvious? Or does the processing need > to be aware of the socket types being connected to do the right > thing?
I would say that infinite + X should be infinite rather than X. Martin _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
