I am almost always right. maybe ask the original author/s via github ? Why do things the hard way ;)
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm....@gmail.com> wrote: > You are both right. > Question about nanomsg is the thread model (a big bonus of 0mq), which is > not clear to me. > they state: "...In nanomsg the objects are not tightly bound to particular > threads and thus these problems don't exist...", about some thread related > issues in 0mq. > I'll have to check (with sources or more docs readings) if they are bound > to an external thread. > If they account for an external thread support, this is not possible with > the current vm without writing some external C code (I could but I would > not like). > Le 08/10/2014 07:07, itli...@schrievkrom.de a écrit : > > 0MQ is defined by its exported C interface ... >> >> >> Am 07.10.2014 um 23:51 schrieb kilon alios: >> >>> nope but it is made (unlike 0mq which is made in C++) in C so its >>> should be relative simple to wrap with NB or even TalkFFI. At least the >>> parts that interest you. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
