[nanomsg] Re: issue with "received" message size
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:32:32 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/03/14 10:54, Paul Colomiets wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Martin Sustrik
> <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I don't think such prioritization is useful enough to create
>>> another feature. I think the obvious way to implement it is to
>>> use two sockets. (Note that you need to have two different
>>> nn_bind() calls to use priorities too, because nanomsg doesn't
>>> allow to have any distinction between two accept()'ed
>>> connections on single endpoint).
>>
>> Doesn't the same apply to send priorities?
>>
> No. Because you don't know if there are peers at socket A (i.e.
> nanomsg doesn't expose that information), to know when to fallback
> to socket B.
Still sounds the same to me:
Scenario A (simulating send priorities using 2 sockets):
1. Open 2 sockets
2. Send message to first socket in a non-blocking way
3. In case of EAGAIN error send the message to the second socket.
Scenario B (simulating recv priorities using 2 sockets):
1. Open 2 sockets
2. Rec message from first socket in a non-blocking way
3. In case of EAGAIN error receive the message from the second socket.
Comment: In reality both scenarious would require to poll on both
sockets. Above version is simplified for readability sake.
Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTHuZAAAoJENTpVjxCNN9YYOIH/3mISlLPFbz3iJtGyYGKBECm
ZNPxJiPqBu27wzL3eCUQVD8itRMYeY2cHItlupClzxGHX3fo20br1PslCopL00Cy
w8Bwk1ILxn1YgNhpCQZFFM+spaZxe3l7iJ5g3Imhl6DSb70RH3wEJfqtOF5vxhyw
h6g3bpoCvCzWV60BEe2jffRZ9AoaRdXnCR2SLE5/rGa0y31a0r9stRiuUw0yChtW
1OKhggkY+B4eCyk8TspXdczzr5w9wVu6bGBe+RNPiSEz2/Nr9RIZS/bKjG2d5hl8
StWHIH9yX5yn+kwJed2GzbhbgUNY89q6yKAppHZfKozt1uPADsLfnhm3GmOnROc=
=jIPj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Other related posts:
