[zeromq-dev] Devices, and pipeline again

[Martin Lucina]

ph at imatix.com said:
> [snip part about devices]
> As you can see I'm using ZMQ_PUSH and ZMQ_PULL in place of
> ZMQ_DOWNSTREAM and ZMQ_UPSTREAM.  It seems to work.  A node pulls
> data, works on it, and pushes it on.  So nodes are pullers, or
> pushers, or both.  It's short, verbish (like the other socket types)
> and feels clear.

ZMQ_PUSH and ZMQ_PULL, nice! This clicks with being able to describe the
sockets in terms of the topology: "A socket of type ZMQ_PUSH is used to
push data to downstream pipeline nodes ..." etc.

It looks like we have a new contender.

To summarize, the major contenders in ye Great Pipeline Naming Debate are:

0) ZMQ_UPSTREAM / ZMQ_DOWNSTREAM (status quo)
1) ZMQ_PIN / ZMQ_POUT
2) ZMQ_SOURCE / ZMQ_SINK
3) ZMQ_PULL / ZMQ_PUSH
4) ZMQ_ICANHAZBITES / ZMQ_IWANTBITES :-)

> If there are no outright objections after a day or so I'll start to
> deprecate ZMQ_DOWNSTREAM/UPSTREAM and replace with ZMQ_PUSH/PULL.
> We'll keep the old definitions around, of course, this does not break
> the ABI.

My only objection is the usual one; *we* (as in the community and core
contributors) should reach consensus and *we* can then proceed with
deprecating ZMQ_DOWNSTREAM/ZMQ_UPSTREAM and replacing those with
ZMQ_XXX/ZMQ_YYY for the next release.

Of course in the mean time you (or anyone else, as people are already
doing) are free to #define the names privately to anything you like.

-mato