[zeromq-dev] User Guide [WAS: OpenStack cloud API]
ph at imatix.com
Wed Aug 4 19:29:25 CEST 2010
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:20 PM, gonzalo diethelm <gdiethelm at dcv.cl> wrote:
> I tried editing that page. None of the buttons at the bottom (Cancel,
> Show Changes, Preview, Save & Continue, Save) does anything noticeable.
Doing nothing at all is weird. The permissions were preventing
non-members from editing the page, which I've changed so anonymous
users can make edits. (If there is spam I'll tighten permissions
> I am using Firefox 3.6.8 on Windows XP SP3 and although I do have
> NoScript 2.0 installed, I have allowed all scripts in that page. Any
You probably need to allow scripts from some other places too.
Anyhow, I see you are editing that page so I'm already replying to an
old question... :-)
> In any case, here is my first batch of suggestions (so I won't loose
> # Should //inproc// be renamed to //itc// or something? Is this part of
> the "big rename" discussion?
Yes, part of the big rename discussion. For me, this is a good time
to fix names so long as we keep aliases around. I'd support itc, it
is sensible and consistent.
> # I would create a full Table of Contents, perhaps indicating which
> entries are still "To Do". This way we can ascertain the full structure
> for the document.
> # I would list somewhere the known language bindings and OSs.
That's in the part I chopped out.
> # When talking about UDP you say //something as simple as a single
> byte... the last byte//; that whole sentence is unclear (to me).
OK, will review.
> # You say about ZMQ_REQ / ZMQ_REP: //but are slower because of the extra
> overhead in keeping the state organized//. Is this noticeable? Is it
> worth pointing it out in a User's Guide?
Nope, not worth saying and in fact that entire section is gone, Martin
pointed out and I agree that it's kind of superfluous. Nice, but not
> # When discussing ZMQ_PUB / ZMQ_SUB, there is a dangling //asynchronous
> messaging// in there.
More information about the zeromq-dev