[zeromq-dev] [PATCH] Improved response to socket violations
ph at imatix.com
Sat May 21 01:17:51 CEST 2011
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> wrote:
> However, this doesn't work if one thread closes the socket and other
> thread tries to access it afterwards.
Indeed, and this particular scenario is the one that causes this
assert in mailbox.cpp.
People do also try to actively recv/send from the same socket in
multiple threads but less often, by experience. However, trying to
close all sockets from one place seems a regular thing. I've hit
exactly the same fault myself trying to manage sockets automatically
Anyone else have an opinion on handling these asserts more "nicely"?
More information about the zeromq-dev