[zeromq-dev] [PATCH] Improved response to socket violations

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Mon May 23 16:32:19 CEST 2011

Martin Lucina said:

> I'm saying keep the library as silent as possible. Fatal assertions are
> obviously fine and should be printed, but as I wrote in another thread we
> should work towards making libzmq as robust as possible; i.e. in an ideal
> future version you'd only get a fatal assertion if you hit an actual
> internal bug. Everything else would be reported back to the application
> somehow (either API calls or sys://log or a similar tool for asynchronous
> events).

Totally agreed.

We did start a 'futzing' issue to make 0MQ robust against random data,
with a simple tool I made to send random data to 0MQ ports. That
already caught one or two problems.

it's only when there's an assert that people need IMO any information
that will help them accurately report and/or solve the problem.

If we decide 0MQ should not 'guess' at habitual application errors,
that's fine by me. We do in that case need a better knowledge base of
asserts and what they could mean. Maybe a wiki page...?


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list