Ricardo - if you are lucky, there might be a loophole here for you to exploit with a little lawyering.
"This is my preferred solution although it could break applications that subscribe multiple times to the same topic and expect to stop receiving messages only when they unsubscribe the same number of times. Although I'm not aware that this behavior is documented which could mean it isn't really a problem." Do you know if there is a specific test case for this behavior? If your change changes this behavior but does not break the test suite, I believe it might be accepted. One of the guiding principals for ZeroMQ development is, paraphrased, "if you liked it should have put a test around it". "A breaking change" is usually interpreted to mean "it breaks the tests" (note it's the wording Pieter used in his response). If this behavior is not documented and it is not tested you should be in good shape, as far as I know. Cheers, Brian On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Ricardo Catalinas Jiménez < jimenezr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Correction, I meant XSUB in point 1. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:36:28AM +0100, Ricardo Catalinas Jiménez wrote: > > [...] > > > > 1. Don't filter repeated unsubscribe messages in *XSUB*... > > > > [...] > > > /Ricardo > _______________________________________________ > 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
