This change is already integrated now for nn_bind() in the 1.0.0rc1. And
yes, it does remove that need.
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Robbin Carlson <robbin.carlson@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From one of GA’s prior messages I quote:
The final issue, and one I’m on the fence about, is the idea to make
nn_bind() synchronous — at least the “listen and bind to address” part,
while the underlying accept() would be asynchronous. I have ideas as to
how to do this, but it involves some larger surgery, and it isn’t 100%
clear to me that we should hold back 1.0 pending this change, which IMO
would represent some risk.
Would this proposed change remove the need to pause between bind/connect
and the first use?
RC
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The first message the server sends is lost, because the clients
haven’t connected yet when the send takes place.
If you ask the server to wait for > 1 sec (perhaps 2 seconds) before
sending the first message, then that will give the clients a chance to
connect, and it will be fine.
- Garrett
