Ian Barber ian.barber at gmail.com
Fri Oct 19 06:39:57 CEST 2012

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
> Changed on June 17th... it seems to me the original name and semantics
> were good, and the June 17 change broke them without real
> argumentation. Perhaps we can enforce the C4 "Development Process"
> rules a little harder. Every pull request with an issue that explains
> the problem it's solving.

Yeah, I have no problem going back to EHOSTUNREACH. Looking back at the PR,
the idea of the change was pretty much precisely to allow a blocking send
to a currently disconnected host (which is now what you're running up
against from the other perspective) - that still does seem like good,
developer friendly behaviour in many cases, but given this is a
default-to-off option, I would be inclined to let the app handle it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20121018/a85dd3e9/attachment.htm>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list