[zeromq-dev] Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: no jzmq in java.library.path (Windows)
Scott Asher
scottpriceasher at gmail.com
Sat Feb 26 14:33:30 CET 2011
Hi Steven,
Java is not finding the DLL. It needs to go somewhere in your path. You
probably have the older version in C:\windows\system32 or something like
that.
As for the 64-bit issue -- I compiled 0MQ and JZMQ in x64 without any
trouble on my Win7 x64 machine in VS10 - not sure what your issue is without
more info?
Scott
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:40 AM, <zeromq-dev-request at lists.zeromq.org>wrote:
> Send zeromq-dev mailing list submissions to
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> zeromq-dev-request at lists.zeromq.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> zeromq-dev-owner at lists.zeromq.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of zeromq-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: no
> jzmq in java.library.path (Windows) (Steven Dahlin)
> 2. Re: Exception in thread "main"
> java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: no jzmq in java.library.path
> (Windows) (Joshua Foster)
> 3. New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2 (Robert G. Jakabosky)
> 4. Re: New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2 (Pieter Hintjens)
> 5. Re: New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2
> (Robert G. Jakabosky)
> 6. Re: New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2 (Martin Sustrik)
> 7. Re: New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2
> (Robert G. Jakabosky)
> 8. Re: New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2 (Pieter Hintjens)
> 9. Re: New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2 (Pieter Hintjens)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:23:54 -0700
> From: Steven Dahlin <steven.dahlin at gmail.com>
> Subject: [zeromq-dev] Exception in thread "main"
> java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: no jzmq in java.library.path
> (Windows)
> To: zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimpQ0HZYLr7WyF2jX4mVcPAZF_8h3pobw9oTP_y at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> The message is occurring when I attempt to initialize a context in Java
> with:
> ZMQ.Context context = ZMQ.context(1);
>
> I have downloaded the latest files for zmq and jzmq off of Github.
> The java jars (zmq.jar and jzmq-2.1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar) were compiled
> using "mvn compile:compile" and "mvn jar:jar" The libzmq.lib (inside
> the zmq project) and the jzmq.dll and libzmq.dll were generated using
> Visual Studio 2010 Express. I should note that my workstation runs 64
> bit Win7 but the libs were compiled as Win32 versions (When I tried
> generated the 64 bit versions problems abounded). Could anyone give
> me any clues as to how to resolve this. We had been using older
> versions of jzmq but I needed the latest so as to utilize the polling
> features.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:32:19 -0500
> From: Joshua Foster <jhawk28 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] Exception in thread "main"
> java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: no jzmq in java.library.path
> (Windows)
> To: ZeroMQ development list <zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
> Message-ID: <F5D172C9-6806-4E8F-AEA1-E394994BD6A3 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> The UnsatisfiedLinkError is because the the directory containing the dll's
> needs to be on the PATH Environment variable.
>
> Joshua
>
> On Feb 25, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Steven Dahlin wrote:
>
> > The message is occurring when I attempt to initialize a context in Java
> with:
> > ZMQ.Context context = ZMQ.context(1);
> >
> > I have downloaded the latest files for zmq and jzmq off of Github.
> > The java jars (zmq.jar and jzmq-2.1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar) were compiled
> > using "mvn compile:compile" and "mvn jar:jar" The libzmq.lib (inside
> > the zmq project) and the jzmq.dll and libzmq.dll were generated using
> > Visual Studio 2010 Express. I should note that my workstation runs 64
> > bit Win7 but the libs were compiled as Win32 versions (When I tried
> > generated the 64 bit versions problems abounded). Could anyone give
> > me any clues as to how to resolve this. We had been using older
> > versions of jzmq but I needed the latest so as to utilize the polling
> > features.
> >
> > Thanks
> > _______________________________________________
> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:45:26 -0800
> From: "Robert G. Jakabosky" <bobby at sharedrealm.com>
> Subject: [zeromq-dev] New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2
> To: zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> Message-ID: <201102260045.26195.bobby at sharedrealm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Here has been a lot of talk on the Lua mailing list about a new feature in
> LuaJIT2 called FFI (foreign function interface). The new FFI feature
> greatly
> improves the performance of Lua code when running under LuaJIT2, but it
> doesn't work under the standard Lua VM. So I have create a hybrid Lua
> module
> [1] that has normal C bindings and FFI-based bindings for 0MQ.
>
> Also the new bindings have support for sending/receving messages using the
> zmq_msg_t structure. This improves the performance even more under LuaJIT2
> and gets the throughput to almost equal that of the C++ benchmark.
>
> Throughput benchmark using the tcp transport over localhost:
> message size: 30 [B]
> message count: 100000000
>
> Orignal Lua bindings running under Lua 5.1.4:
> mean throughput: 1395864 [msg/s]
> mean throughput: 335.007 [Mb/s]
>
> New bindings running under Lua 5.1.4:
> mean throughput: 1577407 [msg/s]
> mean throughput: 378.578 [Mb/s]
>
> Orignal Lua bindings running under LuaJIT2 (git HEAD):
> mean throughput: 2516850 [msg/s]
> mean throughput: 604.044 [Mb/s]
>
> New bindings running under LuaJIT2 (git HEAD):
> mean throughput: 5112158 [msg/s]
> mean throughput: 1226.918 [Mb/s]
>
> New bindings using send_msg/recv_msg functions running under LuaJIT2 (git
> HEAD):
> mean throughput: 6160911 [msg/s]
> mean throughput: 1478.619 [Mb/s]
>
> C++ code:
> mean throughput: 6241452 [msg/s]
> mean throughput: 1497.948 [Mb/s]
>
>
> 1. https://github.com/Neopallium/lua-zmq
>
> --
> Robert G. Jakabosky
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:57:27 +0100
> From: Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2
> To: ZeroMQ development list <zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikWAfb9vrZQgio7tAoQp+Gf423VkEPpEBwHruf_ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Robert, 6M msg/second from Lua, up from 1.3M/sec! Very nice indeed.
>
> Feel free to update http://www.zeromq.org/bindings:lua.
>
> I'd advise you also to put these performance results into your README,
> so it's clear to visitors to the project why they want it.
>
> -Pieter
>
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Robert G. Jakabosky
> <bobby at sharedrealm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here has been a lot of talk on the Lua mailing list about a new feature
> in
> > LuaJIT2 called FFI (foreign function interface). ?The new FFI feature
> greatly
> > improves the performance of Lua code when running under LuaJIT2, but it
> > doesn't work under the standard Lua VM. ?So I have create a hybrid Lua
> module
> > [1] that has normal C bindings and FFI-based bindings for 0MQ.
> >
> > Also the new bindings have support for sending/receving messages using
> the
> > zmq_msg_t structure. ?This improves the performance even more under
> LuaJIT2
> > and gets the throughput to almost equal that of the C++ benchmark.
> >
> > Throughput benchmark using the tcp transport over localhost:
> > message size: 30 [B]
> > message count: 100000000
> >
> > Orignal Lua bindings running under Lua 5.1.4:
> > mean throughput: 1395864 [msg/s]
> > mean throughput: 335.007 [Mb/s]
> >
> > New bindings running under Lua 5.1.4:
> > mean throughput: 1577407 [msg/s]
> > mean throughput: 378.578 [Mb/s]
> >
> > Orignal Lua bindings running under LuaJIT2 (git HEAD):
> > mean throughput: 2516850 [msg/s]
> > mean throughput: 604.044 [Mb/s]
> >
> > New bindings running under LuaJIT2 (git HEAD):
> > mean throughput: 5112158 [msg/s]
> > mean throughput: 1226.918 [Mb/s]
> >
> > New bindings using send_msg/recv_msg functions running under LuaJIT2 (git
> > HEAD):
> > mean throughput: 6160911 [msg/s]
> > mean throughput: 1478.619 [Mb/s]
> >
> > C++ code:
> > mean throughput: 6241452 [msg/s]
> > mean throughput: 1497.948 [Mb/s]
> >
> >
> > 1. https://github.com/Neopallium/lua-zmq
> >
> > --
> > Robert G. Jakabosky
> > _______________________________________________
> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:50:46 -0800
> From: "Robert G. Jakabosky" <bobby at sharedrealm.com>
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2
> To: ZeroMQ development list <zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
> Message-ID: <201102260150.46664.bobby at sharedrealm.com>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Saturday 26, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> > Robert, 6M msg/second from Lua, up from 1.3M/sec! Very nice indeed.
> >
> > Feel free to update http://www.zeromq.org/bindings:lua.
>
> done.
>
> > I'd advise you also to put these performance results into your README,
> > so it's clear to visitors to the project why they want it.
>
> and done.
>
> > -Pieter
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Robert G. Jakabosky
> >
> > <bobby at sharedrealm.com> wrote:
> > > Here has been a lot of talk on the Lua mailing list about a new feature
> > > in LuaJIT2 called FFI (foreign function interface). The new FFI
> feature
> > > greatly improves the performance of Lua code when running under
> LuaJIT2,
> > > but it doesn't work under the standard Lua VM. So I have create a
> > > hybrid Lua module [1] that has normal C bindings and FFI-based bindings
> > > for 0MQ.
> > >
> > > Also the new bindings have support for sending/receving messages using
> > > the zmq_msg_t structure. This improves the performance even more under
> > > LuaJIT2 and gets the throughput to almost equal that of the C++
> > > benchmark.
> > >
> > > Throughput benchmark using the tcp transport over localhost:
> > > message size: 30 [B]
> > > message count: 100000000
> > >
> > > Orignal Lua bindings running under Lua 5.1.4:
> > > mean throughput: 1395864 [msg/s]
> > > mean throughput: 335.007 [Mb/s]
> > >
> > > New bindings running under Lua 5.1.4:
> > > mean throughput: 1577407 [msg/s]
> > > mean throughput: 378.578 [Mb/s]
> > >
> > > Orignal Lua bindings running under LuaJIT2 (git HEAD):
> > > mean throughput: 2516850 [msg/s]
> > > mean throughput: 604.044 [Mb/s]
> > >
> > > New bindings running under LuaJIT2 (git HEAD):
> > > mean throughput: 5112158 [msg/s]
> > > mean throughput: 1226.918 [Mb/s]
> > >
> > > New bindings using send_msg/recv_msg functions running under LuaJIT2
> (git
> > > HEAD):
> > > mean throughput: 6160911 [msg/s]
> > > mean throughput: 1478.619 [Mb/s]
> > >
> > > C++ code:
> > > mean throughput: 6241452 [msg/s]
> > > mean throughput: 1497.948 [Mb/s]
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. https://github.com/Neopallium/lua-zmq
> > >
> > > --
> > > Robert G. Jakabosky
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
> --
> Robert G. Jakabosky
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:17:15 +0100
> From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com>
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2
> To: ZeroMQ development list <zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
> Cc: "Robert G. Jakabosky" <bobby at sharedrealm.com>
> Message-ID: <4D68D32B.70709 at 250bpm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> >> Feel free to update http://www.zeromq.org/bindings:lua.
> >
> > done.
>
> As far as I understand you have overwritten the original Lua binding.
> Given that the new binding doesn't work with all Lua VMs it's definitely
> not a good idea.
>
> I would suggest either keeping both bindings on the page or creating a
> separate page, say 'lua-ffi'.
>
> Martin
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:35:41 -0800
> From: "Robert G. Jakabosky" <bobby at sharedrealm.com>
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2
> To: ZeroMQ development list <zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
> Message-ID: <201102260235.42248.bobby at sharedrealm.com>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Saturday 26, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > >> Feel free to update http://www.zeromq.org/bindings:lua.
> > >
> > > done.
> >
> > As far as I understand you have overwritten the original Lua binding.
> > Given that the new binding doesn't work with all Lua VMs it's definitely
> > not a good idea.
>
> The new bindings do work on all Lua VMs that support that standard Lua C
> API.
> When loaded a Lua VM other then LuaJIT2 (i.e. using Lua 5.1.x or LuaJIT
> 1.2.x)
> it will fallback to using the standard Lua C API (just like the old
> bindings).
> There isn't even any linking issues since the C code of the new bindings
> uses
> only the standard Lua C API (The FFI bindings are pure Lua code).
>
> > I would suggest either keeping both bindings on the page or creating a
> > separate page, say 'lua-ffi'.
>
> I had though about creating a new page like that, but the new bindings do
> not
> require FFI support so I don't want people thinking that they only work
> with
> FFI.
>
> I can create a new bindings page if you want. Not sure how best to
> structure
> a page with both the old and new bindings on one page.
>
> For now I will just move my bindings over to 'lua-ffi'.
>
> > Martin
> > _______________________________________________
> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
> --
> Robert G. Jakabosky
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:38:40 +0100
> From: Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2
> To: ZeroMQ development list <zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimyoWMMzLstSPPVO8KpTD3cY+fO63ir9AQWN6yt at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Robert G. Jakabosky
> <bobby at sharedrealm.com> wrote:
>
> > For now I will just move my bindings over to 'lua-ffi'.
>
> No, please don't do that. We have other languages such as Ruby that
> also have FFI bindings. We have languages like C# with three or more
> bindings. It would become messy to make a page for each variation.
>
> As long as there are users of a particular binding it should be
> documented. You can then work with the author of the older binding to
> merge the two and deprecate the older one, and give users consensus
> about upgrading.
>
> In general people using a binding in production will not trust new
> code for a while.
>
> So I've put both bindings onto the page, please fix the titles if
> they're inaccurate.
>
> Cheers
> Pieter
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:40:34 +0100
> From: Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] New faster 0MQ bindings for Lua & LuaJIT2
> To: ZeroMQ development list <zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTin1HNyMuuMf1VbKpMu0ABV943E7c5ZNd3ynBocn at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
>
> > No, please don't do that. We have other languages such as Ruby that
> > also have FFI bindings. We have languages like C# with three or more
> > bindings. It would become messy to make a page for each variation.
>
> I'm aware that Ruby-FFI has its own page, it shouldn't as far as I'm
> concerned.
>
> -Pieter
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
> End of zeromq-dev Digest, Vol 38, Issue 80
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20110226/ea17f013/attachment.htm>
More information about the zeromq-dev
mailing list