[zeromq-dev] subports

[Martin Sustrik]

On 07/27/2011 11:50 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:

> At SFO we discussed both tunneling and in-process subports, and
> consensus demand was for in-process named subports.

The problem with-in process subports is that that way single-port setup, 
which is the most desirable configuration on the client side, implies 
single-server setup at the service provider side, which is apparently 
not a desirable feature.

I agree that running a vtcpd deamon at the server side is a bit annoying 
and that it should be rather running in the kernel space. However, we 
can address that problem later on.

As for named/numbered subports, I've chosen the fixed length binary 
identifier for HW-friendliness.

The user should of course use a string to access a service. The right 
way to achieve it IMO is providing a name service (which is on the 
roadmap anyway, irrespective of subports feature) that would translate 
name into a subport number.

Martin