[zeromq-dev] Does ZMQ handle tcp-RST?

Justin Cook jhcook at gmail.com
Tue Dec 17 15:35:14 CET 2013


Artem,

Overall, you have been respectful and polite toward the community. We are all busy, and have jobs, kids, and other things to keep us busy. I asked you to provide your code which you initially dismissed. All it takes is one line or an easy off by one error to cause a complete misunderstanding.  

Pieter did not imply you said “I want”. That is simply a way of saying that your needs and use cases should be well defined along with providing that which is asked for, read the docs and even source code if necessary so you understand what the underlying semantics are of what you are dealing with.   

I applaud you for doing tcpdumps and examining what is going across the wire so you understand what happens in specific situations.  

Cheers,

--  
Justin Cook


On Tuesday, 17 December 2013 at 14:26, artemv zmq wrote:

> > > Agreed, that's what he's saying. So where are the semantics of HWM=0
> > > defined? "I want" has never been a valid problem statement in this
> > > community.
> >  
>  
>  
> Hi Pieter. I never in this thread said "I want".  
>  
>  
> 2013/12/17 Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com (mailto:ph at imatix.com)>
> > Agreed, that's what he's saying. So where are the semantics of HWM=0
> > defined? "I want" has never been a valid problem statement in this
> > community.
> >  
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Justin Cook <jhcook at gmail.com (mailto:jhcook at gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > Pieter,
> > >  
> > > What he is trying to do is set HWM to 0 so it will block when a network disconnect occurs. So far, he is saying that is not happening. I asked him to provide a link to his code and specifically say what is happening and what are his expectations.
> > >  
> > > He is basically saying that when a disconnect occurs and HWM is set to 0, send() still returns true. He doesn’t want that to occur.
> > >  
> > > --
> > > Justin Cook
> > >  
> > >  
> > > On Tuesday, 17 December 2013 at 13:44, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> > >  
> > > > HWM=0 does not mean there's no buffering. The TCP buffers will accept
> > > > messages up to a certain size. If you try with larger messages send()
> > > > may behave differently with HWM=0. Also, the queuing strategy depends
> > > > on the socket type.
> > > >  
> > > > Can you find a specification somewhere that states what should happen
> > > > in this case, and can you make a test case that proves the software is
> > > > not conforming to the specification? That is a bug. "I am trying edge
> > > > cases and don't understand the results" isn't a bug.
> > > >  
> > > > So read the specs (there are RFCs for socket behavior, and man pages)
> > > > carefully and try to make minimal test cases to disprove the code.
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org (mailto:zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org)
> > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >  
> > _______________________________________________
> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org (mailto:zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org)
> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org (mailto:zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org)
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev






More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list