Qpid proton cpp

[Baptiste Robert <ba...@gmail.com>]

Hi everybody,

I'm currently working with the qpid proton cpp API (0.18 version) with an
old gcc without c++11 support. I can compile it and use the examples, but
I'm building a multi-threaded client, where I'm trying to create new sender
or sending message asynchronously. So in the examples I found the
working_queue principles, but I'm facing the following difficulty :
How to create a work for the work queue properly ?

I found this function proton::make_work, but when I'm trying to call it for
sending a message like that : proton::make_work(&proton::sender::send,
&m_sender, m) it doesn't compile..

I'm missing something, on the asynchronous utilization ?

Have a good day,

-- 
Baptiste Robert

Re: Qpid proton cpp

[Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>]

Possible you've found a bug, but also possible you're hitting some C++
template type-mismatch potholes. C++ compilers often give incomprehensible
error messages for such problems. Post a code snip that illustrates the
problem with the compiler version you're using, and the error message you
see.

If you can choose your compiler for development I recommend clang++ for
better than average error messages. My employer ships software built with
gcc, but I sometimes switch to clang just to figure out what gcc is
complaining about.

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:51 AM, Baptiste Robert <ba...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm currently working with the qpid proton cpp API (0.18 version) with an
> old gcc without c++11 support. I can compile it and use the examples, but
> I'm building a multi-threaded client, where I'm trying to create new sender
> or sending message asynchronously. So in the examples I found the
> working_queue principles, but I'm facing the following difficulty :
> How to create a work for the work queue properly ?
>
> I found this function proton::make_work, but when I'm trying to call it for
> sending a message like that : proton::make_work(&proton::sender::send,
> &m_sender, m) it doesn't compile..
>
> I'm missing something, on the asynchronous utilization ?
>
> Have a good day,
>
> --
> Baptiste Robert
>