[zeromq-dev] what happens to the bindings with libzmq libzapi ...

[Martin Lucina]

Pieter,

ph at imatix.com said:
> The changes are not as big as they might seem. I'll run through them:
> 
> * libzmq will shed _some_ functionality (devices, C++ API, SWAP)
> mainly because we've found this functionality impossible to evolve, as
> part of libzmq.
> * a new libzutil will provide this functionality, specifically for
> bindings (see http://www.zeromq.org/topics:libzutil).
> * libzmq will provide a 3.0 API that aims to be solve some remaining
> issues in the 2.x API (see http://www.zeromq.org/docs:3-0-upgrade).
> * libzapi is the new high-level C API, i.e. a language binding for C
> apps (see http://zero.mq/c).
> * another library (libzapi++) will become the new high-level C++ API.
> * the ZeroMQ distribution will package libzmq, libzutil, libzapi,
> libzapi++ in a single bundle
> * you'll be able to get the individual libraries via git, as always

I have nothing against libzapi, or any contributions, from anyone. After
all, this is an OSS community and the more the merrier.

However, I do not understand your constant de-emphasising of the core C
APIs and your positioning of libzapi as the official high-level C API.

Normally, a product such as libzapi would go through phases just like e.g.
the language bindings. You announce it, people use it and contribute, and
*if and only if* a need is established by the community that an official
"high-level C API" is required, then libzapi would be established as such.

I do not see that happening here and I agree with the sentiments in this
thread that the proliferation of APIs is a bad thing and will cause us harm
and confusion in the future.

I would like to request discussion on this and would prefer that zapi is
not positioned as "the official high-level C API for ZeroMQ" until/when/if the
community agrees that this is a good thing.

Cheers,

-mato