In the process of debugging it, I went back to the request socket and commented out the portion where the reply socket is given an additional request. So now I have:
==========req socket send "" recv request //... computes result //send result !!! commented out, never occurs ==========rep socket recv // "" send reply //(that is a serialized RPC request) recv // returns "" <- why does this occur? Could this be anything to do with the request socket being closed before all of the data is sent? Or the context destroyed prematurely? I thought the linger period default was -1... I don't know to diagnose why the rep socket can recv, in both cases where the rep socket's second send is un-commented and when it is commented. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller < kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote: > In ocaml I am using ZMQ and piqi to serialize data structures to strings > and ZMQ to send them around. I'm having a problem where I'm using a tcp REQ > socket to request work (initially) and a TCP reply socket to send the > results back. In my unit tests, I can see that the test subvect (worker) > correctly receives a work request, correctly computes a result, and then > sends that back to a psuedo (work broker). Basically it goes like this, 1 & > 2 are concurrent: > > 1) worker sends "" over req to signify that it is ready to receive > requests. This first request string is empty, but from here on out, > subsequent requests contain the result of work computation > > subsequently, the worker receives some reply from the psuedo broker; some > call that maps to a function that is deserialized via piqi parse calls. > (This part is what I was saying is correct in my test) It correctly > computes what is desired. > > worker's sending of computed result back out over req string is the result > of computation and signifies to broker that it is ready for more. > > 2) psuedo broker recvs the empty string, and routes a piqi serialized RPC > request to the worker. > > psuedo broker should simply receive the computation result. *Instead it > receives an empty string;* I've checked in the worker code, and it's *not > sending an empty string. > > Why? >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
