OK, here's my proposal: https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/1258
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Frank Hartmann <sound...@gmx.net> wrote: > Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> writes: > >> That bug hasn't been fixed IMO. >> >> So what you're saying is that simply doing a "sleep (n)" inside >> zmq_ctx_term would actually work better than LINGER n seconds (where n >> is less than infinity)... LOL. > > Hi, > > not really I meant: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > set_linger(n); > zmq_ctx_term(); > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > is the same as: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > internally_stop_sending_msg_and_drop_queued_msg(); > set_linger(0); > sleep(n); > zmq_ctx_term() > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > At least that is my suspicion. Probably for DEALER/ROUTER, but I do not > know if at both ends or not. So there is much behaviour to explore and > document... > > Based on above I meant further setting LINGER to any other value as '0' > or 'inf' is pointless. > > So while 2 seconds or 30seconds from > https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/1253 might make sense from > documentation point of view, in practise it does not help as the > implementation seems to be broken. > > And even if libzmq would work as documented the apprach sounds > racy. Basically I think there will be no guarantee that a message of any > size will be delivered in any amount of time. > > We used ZMQ for short-living sessions(exchange data between processes > over TCP on localhost for a few seconds, then one or both processes > would stop), so in order to achieve delivery of all messages if one > endpoint wants to disconnect, I implemented a special 'exit'-handshake, > so that both processes could deal with the situation. > > So I think too that "Any reliable protocol has to do handshaking, as we > already know." from > https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/1253#issuecomment-62477269 > is the way to go. > > kind regards > Frank > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
