[zeromq-dev] [otish] "Why ZeroMQ"

[Oliver Smith]

On 7/27/2010 4:45 AM, Nicholas Piël wrote:
> I am not really sure about this, wouldn't it be best to name the socket after the role the socket plays?
>
> For example, in a butterfly example the worker nodes have two types of socket they collect from the upstream and push their info downstream. This clearly shows the unidirectional flow of messages.
>    
Agreed: This is the case highlighted by "REQ"/"REP". The endpoint type 
currently named "REQ"uest is the one which receives replies: it is named 
for the role of the node and not the function of the socket.

I want to re-suggest the notion of aliases here. Nice, clear, 
unambiguous /aliases/ for documentation and introduction purposes.

"ZMQ_SOCKET_THAT_SENDS_REQUESTS_AND_THEN_RECEIVES_RESULTS ('ZMQ_REQ' for 
short)"

Ok - maybe not that long ;)This is not about requiring paradigm shifts 
or better documentation,
>> it's about using consistent names that provide some kind of model the
>> poor developer can depend on.
>>
>> The names Mato and I proposed for the pipeline pattern were:
>>
>> ZMQ_BF_CLIENT, ZMQ_WORKER, ZMQ_COLLECTOR
>>      
> I really think these would cause LOTS of troubles. Even in this specifically example you mostly have a server that produces items to be named client.
>    
Agreed, but I think the solution is to name sockets after the role the 
socket plays in communicating.

- Oliver
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20100727/ded5e1be/attachment.htm>