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

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Tue Aug 17 18:22:38 CEST 2010

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Martin Lucina <mato at kotelna.sk> wrote:

> The 0MQ library has no business asserting on user errors. Please do not
> introduce this behaviour.

Mato, thanks for joining the discussion.

IMHO the only part of this thread that really matters is whether or
not there are valid use cases for blocking on a zombie SUB socket.

The rest - whether we assert or return an error code - is
implementation detail and I'm not going to argue it either way.  I've
no opinion EXCEPT that the current silent thread death is not
acceptable, it is bad design, it hits every new user, and it requires
explanation in the Guide that should not be necessary.  I maintain
that it's a design fault in the API and needs fixing one way or

Please don't sidetrack this into a flame war over error codes vs.
assertions.  That is besides the point.  ENOSUBS would be an fine
option.  I've no preference for assertions except that we know from
experience that fail-fast makes robust code when done correctly, and
assertions are good place holders for "we need to do something about
this when we've figured it out".

Mato: could you re-read my analysis of the different use cases in this
thread and tell me whether I'm wrong in claiming that none of the use
cases already stated for zombie-sub-thread-death are valid?


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list