[zeromq-dev] What's in a name: DEVICE?

[Martin Sustrik]

Matt,

> IMO DEVICES are critical for extending ØMQ-based architectures, however 
> the moniker is too general and non-descriptive IMHO. 
> 
> I'd like to suggest that *NEXUS* be the term of art to replace *DEVICE*, 
> or that more complex DEVICEs be labeled NEXUS (which is conveniently its 
> own plural :-) )
> 
> Anyway, that's how I've started describing them.

 From technical point of view, I think device is pretty suitable name. 
Say an Ethernet switch is a device for multicast transports.

 From a theory of networking point of view the common terms are "node" 
(which includes endpoints such as 0MQ sockets), "intermediary" or 
"middlebox" which correspond to in-the-middle forwarding nodes.

Martin