[zeromq-dev] Question about Strange Socket Pairing

[Michel Pelletier]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Matt Goodman <meawoppl at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ahhh.  Ok, so it it totally valid to have the subscriber "bind" the port
> and the various publishers connect to it?


Yep.


>
> I am convinced now that ZMQ is really rad, but the internal mental hoop
> jumping is still a bit hard for me.
>
>
Welcome to zmq! :)

-Michel



> --Matthew Goodman
>
> =====================
> Check Out My Website: http://craneium.net
> Find me on LinkedIn: http://tinyurl.com/d6wlch
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Michel Pelletier <
> pelletier.michel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Matt Goodman <meawoppl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mmkay.  That is what I was feeling.  So a followup question would then
>>> be what it the correct way to go about this?  The push/pull socket thing
>>> works well, I am just concerned about the HWM semantics of blocking.
>>>
>>> I would much rather use a Pub/Sub connection model, but I would need
>>> multiple publishers with a single subscriber?  This seems a bit backward.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all, a subscriber can subscribe to as many publishers as
>> necessary.  Many to many, one to many, many to one, they're all valid.
>>
>> -Michel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20121206/b8cec193/attachment.htm>