[nanomsg] Re: The nanoconfig preview
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 17:50:50 +0200
On 2013-10-04 17:39, Paul Colomiets wrote:
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
I was thinking about the case when the topology doesn't exist. Shouldn't
the fact be reported to the user?
Anyway, it's your call.
Martin
Other related posts:
