[zeromq-dev] Types for options in [gs]etsockopt()

gonzalo diethelm gdiethelm at dcv.cl
Mon Oct 4 16:55:51 CEST 2010

> > In short, a simple (but perhaps incorrect) proposal would be to have
> > of them be unsigned 64 bits, using uint64_t.
> Totally agree.
> > When we reach consensus, I can do the changes to the code.
> This is already on the roadmap for 3.0: http://www.zeromq.org/docs:3-0
> Since it's an API change it would have to be done for 3.0 unless
> there's consensus from binding maintainers that this counts as a
> 'minor change' in which case it could go into 2.1 now.
> I'd see this going in 2.2.0.  It will cause warnings in a bunch
> of existing code though it'll be easy to find and fix those.

Ok, so one thing would be to decide exactly when to apply this "great
rewrite of [gs]etsockopt changes".

Another thing is to decide what to do with the current version. I guess
I should modify the Java binding so that it will have several different
cases, depending on the actual size for each given option... I don't
really see any other way, given the ABI restrictions. Right?

Gonzalo Diethelm

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list