[zeromq-dev] Propose removal of ZMQ_IDENTITY_FD socket option from libzmq 4.1rc and trunk

[Pieter Hintjens]

Great :-)

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Thomas Rodgers <rodgert at twrodgers.com> wrote:
> Excellent, I submitted issue 1296 to capture it. I will put together the
> pull req over the weekend.
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Thomas Rodgers <rodgert at twrodgers.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I would like to propose removing this option before it becomes part of
>> > an
>> > officially released API, but I would like to reassurance that this is an
>> > appropriate course of action before doing so.
>> >
>> > My reasoning for removing it is as follows -
>> >
>> > * It is the only option to zmq_getsockopt() that treats option_value as
>> > a
>> > value/result parameter, all others treat option_value as strictly a
>> > result
>> > parameter.
>> >
>> > * A brief survey of the Posix getsockopt() API shows a similar lack of
>> > using
>> > option_value as a value/result parameter.
>> >
>> > * The original implementation requires the caller to ensure that the
>> > returned buffer is sufficient to hold an fd_t, but fd_t is not part of
>> > ZeroMQ's public API. It is conditionally defined by platform and on
>> > Windows
>> > has two potential definitions.
>> >
>> > * I'm not comfortable with this blind faith assignment through a
>> > pointer, so
>> > I submitted a length check change. Unfortunately this introduces a whole
>> > new
>> > class of potential usage problems for this option.
>> >
>> > * I don't know what the intended use case for the option is, but I infer
>> > from the test_id2fd test case, that is to build a map of router identity
>> > to
>> > fd, perhaps to pass fd to getpeername(2) and build a map of identity to
>> > peername. If this is indeed the case, this use case is already handled
>> > by
>> > calling zmq_msg_get(&part, ZMQ_SRCFD), on the message part containing
>> > the
>> > identity frame.
>> >
>> > What am I missing here?
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>