Jonathan Malmaud

@ArchRobison The only built-in notion of 'sameness' for modules is if the two module instances are "==="; ie have the same memory address. Each invocation of `module X ... end`...

Related: ``` julia> module M x=1 y=@fetch x+1 end WARNING: Module M not defined on process 2 fatal error on 2: ERROR: UndefVarError: M not defined ```

Hey @amitmurthy , I'm thinking of trying to make a PR for heartbeat functionality based on the new message-passing idiom. Would that be stepping on your toes? Do you have...

OK, that makes sense. But wouldn't it to be simpler to just not close the connection in the first place in the event of a serialization error? If a worker...

Oh, is it because the state of the stream is then in a corrupted state so serializing/deserializing messages over it is no longer possible? In that case, one unifying solution...

Ya, I see that out-of-band would have to be on a separate thread. IJulia has example multithreaded heartbeat code (https://github.com/JuliaLang/IJulia.jl/blob/3a1ad9eac8c259c79a6a1c09342eac262b16f34b/src/heartbeat.jl). It might require a new C function somewhere in `src`....

That looks cool, but why not just use a random 10 bytes as the frame delimiter? That's never going to match a message by chance. On Tue, Oct 27, 2015...

Proposed implementation here for reference: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/jmm/boundary_message/base/multi.jl#L228 On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:55 PM Jonathan Malmaud [email protected] wrote: > That looks cool, but why not just use a random 10...

It also doesn't seem like it would work here because it needs to know the number of frame bytes in the message before encoding the message, but we don't have...

Oh ya, I see. Do you mind if I implement it before you? Now I'm excited about it.