[zeromq-dev] RFC: "transport" vs. "endpoint" and orthogonal addressing

Martin Lucina mato at kotelna.sk
Wed Jan 27 12:21:35 CET 2010

steven.mccoy at miru.hk said:
> In contrast I think the goal of ZeroMQ is to provide a simple and
> well-defined interface which is easy to test.  It's usually a good
> idea to try to leave out host name lookups because they can be
> expensive, time wise, and can fail in many different ways.  It's very
> annoying as an administrator to specify a local name but have to wait
> for a DNS lookup to timeout before the transport initiates.

You're right, it's a tradeoff between complexity and convenience. Looking
at all the options you've listed on the OpenPgmConceptsTransport page
making all of these work in ZeroMQ would be quite a lot of work so I'm
inclined to just leave things as they are for now and put this on the "nice
to have" list.

The other point I mentioned in my email ("transport" vs. "endpoint") came
up while writing the LWN article - we need to call a 0MQ URI something so
we decided on "endpoint". I'll be reviewing the 0MQ documentation shortly
and would like to continue to use the term "endpoint" unless anyone has any
better ideas?


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list