[zeromq-dev] [0MQ/3.0] discuss: rename XREP to ROUTER

Andrew Cholakian andrew at andrewvc.com
Mon Feb 14 23:11:36 CET 2011

Router / Dealer is definitely a better name. Looking forward to the change!

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> There is enormous confusion among new users about how to use the
> advanced socket types, and specifically XREP. Here is a (not unusual)
> question from IRC today:
> "I need to implement a push-pull with a custom loadbalancing strategy,
> what would be the recommend method? adjust the source and create a new
> socket type? implement it using PAIR's?"
> It shows just how hard it is for new users to grasp these concepts,
> and the XREP/XREQ socket type names are IMO seriously to blame.
> I'd like to make it absolutely unambiguous that to do custom routing,
> one uses the socket type we call XREP, and achieve this by renaming
> that socket type to ROUTER. Thus one connects a ROUTER socket to other
> socket types, and the ROUTER socket does routing of messages according
> to an envelope that the application prepares.
> For symmetry I'd also suggest renaming XREQ but don't have a better
> name than the one already suggested in Ch3 of the Guide, namely
> My suggestion would be to introduce ROUTER/DEALER as aliases in the
> next minor release of 0MQ, and to make these the official names in
> 3.0. REQ/REP can stay as they are, they are clear enough.
> Comments, objections?
> --
> Pieter Hintjens
> iMatix
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

Andrew Cholakian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20110214/013e4107/attachment.htm>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list