Ad 1) No,
there is not any socket link-management interface exposed to user to test/reset the state of the FSA-to-FSA link in ZeroMQ framework.
Yes, XREQ/XREP may help you overcome the deadlocks, that may & do happen in REQ/REP Scaleable Formal Communication Pattern:
Ref.:
REQ/REPDeadlocks >>> https://stackoverflow.com/a/38163015/3666197
Fig.1: Why it is wrong to use a naive REQ/REP
all cases when [1]in_WaitToRecvSTATE_W2R + [2]in_WaitToRecvSTATE_W2R
are principally unsalvageable mutual deadlock of REQ-FSA/REP-FSA Finite-State-Automata and will never reach the “next” in_WaitToSendSTATE_W2S internal state.
XTRN_RISK_OF_FSA_DEADLOCKED ~ { NETWORK_LoS
: || NETWORK_LoM
: || SIG_KILL( App2 )
: || ...
: }
:
[App1] ![ZeroMQ] : [ZeroMQ] ![App2]
code-control! code-control : [code-control ! code-control
+===========!=======================+ : +=====================!===========+
| ! ZMQ | : | ZMQ ! |
| ! REQ-FSA | : | REP-FSA! |
| !+------+BUF> .connect()| v |.bind() +BUF>------+! |
| !|W2S |___|>tcp:>---------[*]-----(tcp:)--|___|W2R |! |
| .send()>-o--->|___| | | |___|-o---->.recv() |
| ___/ !| ^ | |___| | | |___| ^ | |! \___ |
| REQ !| | v |___| | | |___| | v |! REP |
| \___.recv()<----o-|___| | | |___|<---o-<.send()___/ |
| !| W2R|___| | | |___| W2S|! |
| !+------<BUF+ | | <BUF+------+! |
| ! | | ! |
| ! ZMQ | | ZMQ ! |
| ! REQ-FSA | | REP-FSA ! |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DEADLOCKED in W2R ~~~~~~~~ * ~~~~~~ DEADLOCKED in W2R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| ! /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\| |/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/! |
| ! \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/| |\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\! |
+===========!=======================+ +=====================!===========+
Fig.2: One may implement a free-stepping transmission layer using several pure ZeroMQ builtins and add some SIG-layer tools for getting a full control of all possible distributed system states.
App1.PULL.recv( ZMQ.NOBLOCK ) and App1.PULL.poll( 0 ) are obvious
[App1] ![ZeroMQ]
code-control! code-control
+===========!=======================+
| ! |
| !+----------+ |
| .poll()| W2R ___|.bind() |
| ____.recv()<----o-|___|-(tcp:)--------O
| PULL !| |___| | :
| !| |___| | :
| !| |___| | :
| !+------<BUF+ | :
| ! | : ![App2]
| ! | : [ZeroMQ] ! code-control
| ! | : [code-control ! once gets started ...
| ! | : +=====================!===========+
| ! | : | ! |
| ! | : | +----------+! |
| ! | : | |___ |! |
| ! | : | |___| <--o-<.send()____ |
| ! | :<<-------<tcp:<|___| W2S|! PUSH |
| ! | : .connect() <BUF+------+! |
| ! | : | ! |
| ! | : | ! |
+===========!=======================+ : +=====================!===========+
Ad 2) No,
but one may create one’s own “ZeroMQ-consumables” to test the distributed system’s ability to setup a new transport/signalling socket, being ready to dispose it, if the RTO-test fails to prove that both ( multiple ) sides are ready to setup + communicate over the ZeroMQ infrastructure ( notice, that the problems are not only with the ZeroMQ layer, but also the App-side need not be ready/in such a state to handle the expected communication interactions ( and may cause soft-locks / dead-locks ).
The best next step?
What I can do for your further questions right now is to direct you to see a bigger picture on this subject >>> with more arguments, a simple signalling-plane / messaging-plane illustration and a direct link to a must-read book from Pieter HINTJENS.