But only one side gets a message from the broker. The other side just
freezes.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote:
> Sure, it'd work as subjects.
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What are the two messages SET and GET that you're talking about? Are you
> > saying that sendfor parameter char * address is "ADDRESS" and subject is
> > "GET" or "SET" depending on whether or not there should be a read, with
> the
> > contents being the actual "tcp://some_IP:some_port"? Or actually author
> the
> > protocol for brokering where I use actual broker commands SET and GET?
> >
> > Is send_for exchangeable for send_forx in this context?
> >
> > I changed it to this, trying to follow mlm_client.c:
> >
> > char * exchange_addresses(std::string consumer_topic, std::string
> > production_topic, std::string toSend) {
> > mlm_client_t *client_reader = mlm_client_new();
> > assert(client_reader);
> > mlm_client_t *client_writer = mlm_client_new();
> > assert(client_writer);
> >
> > int rc=mlm_client_connect (client_reader, "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999" ,
> 3000,
> > "ADDRESS");
> > assert(rc==0);
> > rc=mlm_client_connect (client_writer, "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999" , 3000,
> > "");
> > assert(rc==0);
> >
> > std::cout << "producing to topic: " << production_topic << std::endl;
> > std::cout << "consuming from topic: " << consumer_topic << std::endl;
> > if (!mlm_client_sendtox(client_writer, "ADDRESS", "SET",
> toSend.c_str(),
> > NULL)) {
> > std::cout << "client sent message" << std::endl;
> > }
> > else {
> > std::cerr << "error sending message" << std::endl;
> > }
> >
> >
> > char *subject, *content, *attach;
> > std::cerr << consumer_topic << " receiving message" << std::endl;
> > mlm_client_recvx (client_reader, &subject, &content, &attach, NULL);
> > mlm_client_destroy(&client_writer);
> > mlm_client_destroy(&client_reader);
> > std::cout << "received: \"" << subject << "\" :" << content << "." <<
> > std::endl;
> > zstr_free(&subject);
> > return content;
> > }
> >
> >
> > I get one of the set messages, but
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure, it's much more fun if you write this up.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
> >> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I can help you with writing an article :)
> >> >
> >> > I was literally discovery what you were telling me, since sometimes,
> >> > about
> >> > 1/4 of the time, it would succeed. What you say rationalizes my
> >> > considerations since I was literally writing you an email about what I
> >> > was
> >> > witnessing.
> >> >
> >> > Let me try to work out what you're saying, then I can post what I
> >> > established to a public github repo :)
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The problem with streams is there's no persistence yet, so both peers
> >> >> have to be present at the same time. A name registration/lookup
> >> >> service is probably better.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, the set_worker call offers a service. I'd do this:
> >> >>
> >> >> - offer a service "ADDRESS" using set_worker
> >> >> - two messages: SET and GET, each taking a name/value (use frames or
> >> >> any other encoding you like)
> >> >> - use the sendfor method to send the request
> >> >> - use the sendto method to send the replies, which end in a client's
> >> >> mailbox
> >> >> - read the replies using the recv method
> >> >>
> >> >> For this to work, peers need to specify a mailbox address in the
> >> >> connect
> >> >> method.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you like I'll write an article and make examples.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Pieter
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
> >> >> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > I got it to work by setting the subscribed topic to "inproc*" on
> >> >> > mlm_client_set_worker call.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
> >> >> > <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ok after looking at mlm_client.c, I have the following:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Two concurrent calls to exchange addresses with the following
> >> >> >> parameters:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> //thread 1
> >> >> >> char * servrAddr = exchange_addresses("backendEndpoints",
> >> >> >> "frontendEndpoints", "inproc://frontend");
> >> >> >> //thread 2
> >> >> >> char * servrAddr = exchange_addresses("frontendEndpoints",
> >> >> >> "backendEndpoints", "inproc://backend");
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Where exchange addresses is implemented as:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> char * exchange_addresses(std::string consumer_topic, std::string
> >> >> >> production_topic, std::string toSend) {
> >> >> >> mlm_client_t *client_reader = mlm_client_new();
> >> >> >> assert(client_reader);
> >> >> >> mlm_client_t *client_writer = mlm_client_new();
> >> >> >> assert(client_writer);
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> int rc=mlm_client_connect (client_reader, "tcp://
> 127.0.0.1:9999"
> >> >> >> ,
> >> >> >> 3000, "");
> >> >> >> assert(rc==0);
> >> >> >> rc=mlm_client_connect (client_writer, "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999" ,
> >> >> >> 3000,
> >> >> >> "");
> >> >> >> assert(rc==0);
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> std::cout << "producing to topic: " << production_topic <<
> >> >> >> std::endl;
> >> >> >> std::cout << "consuming from topic: " << consumer_topic <<
> >> >> >> std::endl;
> >> >> >> mlm_client_set_worker(client_reader, consumer_topic.c_str(),
> "*");
> >> >> >> if (!mlm_client_sendforx (client_writer,
> production_topic.c_str(),
> >> >> >> toSend.c_str(), "", NULL))
> >> >> >> std::cout << "client sent message" << std::endl;
> >> >> >> else
> >> >> >> std::cerr << "error sending message" << std::endl;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> char *subject, *content, *attach;
> >> >> >> mlm_client_recvx (client_reader, &subject, &content, NULL);
> //<--
> >> >> >> blocking here
> >> >> >> mlm_client_destroy(&client_writer);
> >> >> >> mlm_client_destroy(&client_reader);
> >> >> >> std::cout << "received: " << subject << " " << content <<
> >> >> >> std::endl;
> >> >> >> return content;
> >> >> >> }
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Problem is, both threads block at mlm_client_recvx... As per
> >> >> >> example,
> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> looks correct.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller
> >> >> >> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Oh you mean with mlm_client_set_worker! Do I do set_worker on
> each
> >> >> >>> side
> >> >> >>> with different service names? How does a client get a specific
> >> >> >>> service?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller
> >> >> >>> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Service semantics? I don't know what those are...
> >> >> >>>> I read what tutorials I think that there are. I have some
> >> >> >>>> questions
> >> >> >>>> about the how things are forwarded-I want only one to one
> >> >> >>>> pairing...
> >> >> >>>> I'm not
> >> >> >>>> sure if what I'm doing is setting up for publishing and
> >> >> >>>> subscriptions. There
> >> >> >>>> was a lot of talk about some of the other features in the
> malamute
> >> >> >>>> manual/whitepaper, and it's kind of confusing. Basically, I just
> >> >> >>>> want
> >> >> >>>> FCFS
> >> >> >>>> exchange of information for mutually requiring parties.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com>
> >> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> The simplest way to make a lookup service is using the service
> >> >> >>>>> semantics, and the lookup service can talk to the broker over
> >> >> >>>>> inproc
> >> >> >>>>> or tcp as it wants (it could be a thread in the same process,
> or
> >> >> >>>>> a
> >> >> >>>>> separate process).
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
> >> >> >>>>> <kennethadammil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> > So, in order to manage a mutual exchange of address between
> two
> >> >> >>>>> > concurrent
> >> >> >>>>> > parties, I thought that on each side I would have a producer
> >> >> >>>>> > produce
> >> >> >>>>> > to a
> >> >> >>>>> > topic that the opposite side was subscribed to. That means
> that
> >> >> >>>>> > each
> >> >> >>>>> > side is
> >> >> >>>>> > both a producer and a consumer.
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > I have the two entities running in parallel. The front end
> >> >> >>>>> > client
> >> >> >>>>> > connects
> >> >> >>>>> > to the malamute broker, and subscribes to the
> backendEndpoints
> >> >> >>>>> > topic,
> >> >> >>>>> > and
> >> >> >>>>> > then producing it's endpoint to the frontendEndpoints topic.
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > The opposite side does the same thing, with the back end
> >> >> >>>>> > subscribing
> >> >> >>>>> > to the
> >> >> >>>>> > frontendEndpoints and producing to backendEndpoints.
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > The problem is that if the front end and back end are in
> their
> >> >> >>>>> > own
> >> >> >>>>> > threads
> >> >> >>>>> > then only the thread that completes the mlm_set_producer and
> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_set_consumer call proceed. The one that didn't make it
> that
> >> >> >>>>> > far
> >> >> >>>>> > will
> >> >> >>>>> > hang at that mlm_set_x pair point...
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > code:
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "connectToFrontEnd" << std::endl;
> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *frontend_reader = mlm_client_new();
> >> >> >>>>> > assert(frontend_reader);
> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *frontend_writer = mlm_client_new();
> >> >> >>>>> > assert(frontend_writer);
> >> >> >>>>> > int rc=mlm_client_connect (frontend_reader,
> >> >> >>>>> > "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999"
> >> >> >>>>> > ,
> >> >> >>>>> > 1000, "reader/secret");
> >> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
> >> >> >>>>> > rc=mlm_client_connect (frontend_writer,
> >> >> >>>>> > "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999"
> >> >> >>>>> > ,
> >> >> >>>>> > 1000,
> >> >> >>>>> > "writer/secret");
> >> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "frontend mlm clients connected" << std::endl;
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_consumer(frontend_reader,
> "backendEndpoints",
> >> >> >>>>> > "*");
> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_producer(frontend_writer,
> >> >> >>>>> > "frontendEndpoints");
> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "frontend client producers and consumers set"
> <<
> >> >> >>>>> > std::endl;
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > The code looks exactly* the same for the backend, but with
> some
> >> >> >>>>> > variable and
> >> >> >>>>> > other changes.
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "connectToBackEnd" << std::endl;
> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *backend_reader = mlm_client_new();
> >> >> >>>>> > assert(backend_reader);
> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *backend_writer = mlm_client_new();
> >> >> >>>>> > assert(backend_writer);
> >> >> >>>>> > int
> >> >> >>>>> > rc=mlm_client_connect(backend_reader,"tcp://127.0.0.1:9999",
> >> >> >>>>> > 1000,
> >> >> >>>>> > "reader/secret");
> >> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
> >> >> >>>>> > rc=mlm_client_connect(backend_writer,"tcp://127.0.0.1:9999
> ",
> >> >> >>>>> > 1000,
> >> >> >>>>> > "writer/secret");
> >> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "backend mlm clients connected" << std::endl;
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_consumer(backend_reader,
> "frontendEndpoints",
> >> >> >>>>> > "*");
> >> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_producer(backend_writer,
> "backendEndpoints");
> >> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "backend client producers and consumers set"
> <<
> >> >> >>>>> > std::endl;
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > I only ever will see either "frontend client produces and
> >> >> >>>>> > consumers
> >> >> >>>>> > set" or
> >> >> >>>>> > "backend client producers and consumers set".
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Pieter Hintjens <
> p...@imatix.com>
> >> >> >>>>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> >>
> >> >> >>>>> >> My assumption is that a broker that's doing a lot of service
> >> >> >>>>> >> requests
> >> >> >>>>> >> won't be showing costs of regular expression matching,
> >> >> >>>>> >> compared
> >> >> >>>>> >> to
> >> >> >>>>> >> the
> >> >> >>>>> >> workload.
> >> >> >>>>> >>
> >> >> >>>>> >>
> >> >> >>>>> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Doron Somech
> >> >> >>>>> >> <somdo...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>>>> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> I did it in actors and then moved it back into the main
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> server
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> as
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> it
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> was complexity for nothing (at that stage). I'd rather
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> design
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> against
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> real use than against theory.
> >> >> >>>>> >> >
> >> >> >>>>> >> > Don't you worry about the matching performance which will
> >> >> >>>>> >> > happen
> >> >> >>>>> >> > on the
> >> >> >>>>> >> > main
> >> >> >>>>> >> > thread? Also a usage I can see is to use exact matching
> >> >> >>>>> >> > (string
> >> >> >>>>> >> > comparison)
> >> >> >>>>> >> > over regular expression (I usually use exact matching),
> this
> >> >> >>>>> >> > is
> >> >> >>>>> >> > way I
> >> >> >>>>> >> > think
> >> >> >>>>> >> > the plugin model fits the service as well.
> >> >> >>>>> >> >
> >> >> >>>>> >> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Pieter Hintjens
> >> >> >>>>> >> > <p...@imatix.com>
> >> >> >>>>> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Doron Somech
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> <somdo...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > So I went over the code, really liked it. Very simple.
> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Thanks. I like the plugin model, especially neat using
> CZMQ
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> actors.
> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > I have a question regarding services, for each stream
> you
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > are
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > using a
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > dedicate thread (actors) and one thread for managing
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > mailboxes.
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > However
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > (if
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > I understood correctly) for services you are doing the
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > processing
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > inside
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > the
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > server thread, why didn't you use an actor for each
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > service
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > or
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > actor
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > to
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > manage all services? I think the matching of services
> can
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > be
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > expensive
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > and
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > block the main thread.
> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> I did it in actors and then moved it back into the main
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> server
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> as
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> it
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> was complexity for nothing (at that stage). I'd rather
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> design
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> against
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> real use than against theory.
> >> >> >>>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> -Pieter
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >>>>> >> >> 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
> >> >> >>>>> >> >
> >> >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >>>>> >> 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
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >>>>> 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
> >> >> >
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> 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
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
