[zeromq-dev] Renaming ZMQ_RECONNECT_IVL_MAX in 3.0

[Ian Barber]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> wrote:

> On 04/12/2011 04:26 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
>
> > Hmm, industry practice is short option names ("SNDBUF"), so
> > ZMQ_RECONNECT and ZMQ_RECONNECT_MAX would work better.
>
> As the option is not part of POSIX, I have no opinion on this matter.
>
> What do others think? Is shortening the option names worth of it? There
> are couple of other long names out there, e.g. ZMQ_RECOVERY_IVL. Or even
> ZMQ_SUBSCRIBE and ZMQ_UNSUBSCRIBE...
>
>
If we're going with ZMQ_RECOVERY_IVL it makes sense to have
ZMQ_RECONNECT_IVL and ZMQ_RECONNECT_IVL_MAX I think, or ZMQ_RECOVERY +
ZMQ_RECONNECT + ZMQ_RECONNECT_MAX.

Ian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20110412/6a03b57c/attachment.htm>