[zeromq-dev] Explicit patterns

Martin Sustrik sustrik at imatix.com
Thu May 27 10:00:03 CEST 2010


Brian Granger wrote:
> Pieter
> 
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
>> Brian,
>>
>> I appreciate your view on things.  At first sight, patterns do neatly
>> wrap together socket types and devices but what you say about the set
>> of devices being much larger rings true.

Yes, the set of possible devices is endless. Even now, network switch 
acts as a hardware device (forwarder) when two applications connect to 
it using multicast transport.

>> So your view is that there is no need to rename/fixup the socket type
>> names, that won't make things any clearer...?
> 
> Yes, definitely.  I think it would confuse the situation.

I agree with Brian.

Messaging patterns are basic theoretical concepts behind 0MQ, however, 
newbies do see only sockets as such. Having pattern name in the socket 
name would just confuse them.

Once they become experienced, they'll grasp the patterns, but at that 
point they know socket names by heart so they don't care if the pattern 
is explicitly expressed in the socket name.

Martin



More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list