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

[Brian Granger]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Nicholas Piël <nicholas at nichol.as> wrote:

>
> On Jul 27, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Oliver Smith wrote:
>
> > On 7/27/2010 6:07 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> >> And these names still don't say anything at all about the pattern,
> >> which is load balancing and fair queuing...
> >>
> >> How about FANOUT and FANIN, which combine the notion of in/out with
> >> the notion of distribution and collecting?
> >>
> > Don't beat about the bush ... Retain the current names, but alias as
> >
> > ZMQ_PIPELINE_OUT
> > ZMQ_PIPELINE_IN
>
> +1
>

+1

I also don't think we should mess with the other names.  The only names I
find to be confusing are the UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM.  All the other names fit
the pattern MAtrix described of "I am a PUBlisher, I am a REPlier, etc."  My
feeling is that because of the flexibility of 0MQ sockets, ANY naming scheme
will be a leaky abstraction.  Thus, as long as they are decent, we shouldn't
mess with them.  To really understand each socket type, you really have to
learn more about how they work from the docs.

Brian



> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>



-- 
Brian E. Granger, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Physics
Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
bgranger at calpoly.edu
ellisonbg at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20100727/65bc2052/attachment.htm>