[zeromq-dev] zmq-socket name aliases (was: Re: Why ZeroMQ?)

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Tue Jul 27 19:44:50 CEST 2010

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Brian Granger <ellisonbg at gmail.com> wrote:

> ...

All good points, and this was where we stopped the proposal to rename
socket types last time around.

> Any usage of the words client/server/service is horribly confusing in the
> 0MQ context.

I'm not going to defend the long names if people feel they clumsy and
pointless, but 'client' and 'server' are formally defined in
http://api.zeromq.org/zmq_socket.html and though I'm often pretty
confused about many things, these were always clear.  Sure, you can
have networks where services connect to clients but then you _know_
you're doing weird stuff.

Actually, calling them 'client' and 'server' (for reqrep) IMO helps by
telling users 'you really should be binding the server socket and
connecting the client socket' (in 95% of cases).  Network
architectures aren't random.  Clients are generally a lot more dynamic
than services.


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list