On 17.02.2012, at 3:32, john skaller <skal...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> On 17/02/2012, at 9:05 AM, Chuck Remes wrote: > >> On Feb 16, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: >>> >> >> zmq_poll() would probably need to be modified to disallow multiple threads >> from polling. Alternately, zmq_poll() would need to disallow a poll_item >> list that contained a socket that is already a member of another call to >> zmq_poll() from another thread. >> >> Ugly. Error prone. I don't see how this could work well without some hacks. >> And now "thread safety" would generate a shit-ton of additional questions >> about why zmq_poll() was so strict, broken, etc. > > No need to change it at all. It is the same as now: if you misuse a feature, > you can't > expect reliable results. > > The difference is now you get unexpected results instead of a segfault. I believe, such a "feature" (unexpected behavior instead of segfault) is enough reason to revert the patch. _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
