[zeromq-dev] IPC and free ports

Pieter Hintjens pieterh at gmail.com
Sat Oct 13 03:26:18 CEST 2012

On Oct 12, 2012 6:32 PM, "andrea crotti" <andrea.crotti.0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> But why double binding on IPC doesn't fail, when should that be a good idea?

The code explicitly overrides an existing binding on an IPC endpoint
so it can recover after a crashed process.

There's been discussion before over whether this is the right strategy or not.

For me, the problem is that it's inconsistent with other transports
(as you've found). We expect binding to be exclusive.

If I had designed this I'd probably give applications an explicit way
to recover after a crash, but reject a second attempt to bind to the
same IPC endpoint. Note that the current behavior is NOT documented
anywhere, so we are free to change it.


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list