[zeromq-dev] Newbie Bait Request: Debug "Warning" mechanism.
ph at imatix.com
Tue Aug 17 16:43:46 CEST 2010
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Alexey Ermakov <zee at technocore.ru> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
>> As a secondary suggestion, the null/block case turns into "subscribe
>> to EVERYTHING" which is what 100% of people want when they naively
>> write code and omit the filter.
> That would mean completely different semantics for recv() and poll()
> for the socket, which would be confusing.
Not particularly, poll() would have to make the same assumption, but
honestly I don't think treating the null case as "everything" is
clean. It's a hack. Better to be 100% consistent.
However we have not found any valid use cases for blocking recv() on
dead SUB sockets. The one Matt described specifically must side-step
the dead SUB socket if it's to work at all.
Meaning a "wtf?" assertion in such cases would be the sanest reaction from 0MQ.
More information about the zeromq-dev