[zeromq-dev] Non-contiguous message thoughts

Martin Sustrik sustrik at 250bpm.com
Mon Mar 8 20:26:18 CET 2010


Brian Granger wrote:
> Martin,
> 
>> Yes. The field has to be there anyway.
>>
>> We just have to find some suitable name for the accessor function...
>>
>> bool zmq_msg_end (zmq_msg_t *msg);
> 
> While this may not be possible in C/C++, in Python, I would be tempted
> to hide the message group
> stuff in send/recv:
> 
> sock.send([msg1, msg2, msg3])
> 
> On the other side:
> 
> messages = sock.recv()

One thing to be considered is keeping the case of single-part message as 
simple as possible (i.e. as simple as it is now) given that this will be 
the case in 99 times of 100.

message = sock.recv() [0] just doesn't look right.


One additional issue to think about: In C API sending a multipart 
message involves passing a flag to send function, while receiving a 
multipart message requires checking a flag on message itself. That seems 
somewhat incoherent. Is there a better way? Is there a better way wthout 
making the API sucky?

Martin



More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list