[zeromq-dev] Newbie Bait Request: Debug "Warning" mechanism.

Pieter Hintjens 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 mailing list