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

Ben Kloosterman bklooste at gmail.com
Tue Jul 27 16:20:14 CEST 2010


I find "socket" quite confusing , all my work is inproc  or via IPC an no
where am I using TCP sockets..


I still think PROD ( Producer) and CON ( Consumer) are very clear PartA
produces and PartyB consumes , in and out are always relative to who you are
talking about A out is Bs in

Ben


 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org [mailto:zeromq-dev-
 >bounces at lists.zeromq.org] On Behalf Of Pieter Hintjens
 >Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:45 PM
 >To: 0MQ development list
 >Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] [otish] "Why ZeroMQ"
 >
 >On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Oliver Smith <oliver at kfs.org> wrote:
 >
 >> #define ZMQ_PIPELINE_OUTSOCKET 8
 >> #define ZMQ_PIPELINE_INSOCKET 7
 >
 >Why would you add "SOCKET" to the type name?
 >
 >If you want to be pedantic, you'd add it at the front and probably say
 >SOCK:
 >
 > #define ZMQ_SOCK_PIPELINE_OUT 8
 > #define ZMQ_SOCK_PIPELINE_IN 7
 >
 >Actually that reads quite nicely... :-)
 >
 >-Pieter
 >_______________________________________________
 >zeromq-dev mailing list
 >zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
 >http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev




More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list