[nanomsg] Re: The nanoconfig preview
- From: Paul Colomiets <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:39:56 +0300
Hi Martin,
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2013-10-04 17:21, Paul Colomiets wrote:
>
>> Requesting config and executing nn_connect/nn_bind/nn_setsockopt is
>> done in background.
>
>
> Is that a desirable behaviour? Wouldn't it be better if the configuration
> phase happened synchronously, returning an error if the configuration
> database wasn't accessible?
>
> I am not suggesting either way, just raising the question...
>
My opinion is quite biased: I hate synchronous stuff. But anyway:
1. Application startup should not be blocked by network lag
2. Address resolving for multiple sockets might be parallel
3. Nanoconfig rechecks addresses every 5 min, and when update message arrives
--
Paul
Other related posts:
