[zeromq-dev] San Francisco meetup today!

Jon Gifford jon at loggly.com
Wed Mar 9 09:29:49 CET 2011

Thanks Maxime for this excellent summary.

Thanks Martin for cluing us in on what could be coming

And thanks to everyone who showed up tonight.

Maxime writes as if the next meetup is already organized, so lets assume
he's right...

There are obviously quite a few people doing or thinking of doing some
pretty interesting things with 0MQ, and I for one would love to hear what
everyone is up to. I'd also be more than happy to do a talk about how we're
using 0MQ at Loggly, and share our experiences with it.

We (Loggly) would be happy to host further meetups, but given the number of
people who came from the more Southern parts of the peninsular, travel is
also fine. Consider this a standing offer for a venue :-)



On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Maxime Petazzoni <
maxime.petazzoni at bulix.org> wrote:

> Hi all 0MQ fans,
> As you most likely know we had tonight the first (ever?) ZeroMQ meetup
> in San Francisco, kindly hosted by Loggly at 78 1st St in the heart of
> the city.
> We had a very nice and friendly crowd there of about a dozen people all
> using, or interested by, in some way, ZeroMQ, starting by Loggly
> themselves.
> Our discussions were centered around what we felt would be nice-to-have
> features in the mid-to-long term. Martin hinted at a few things
> currently (or soon-to-be) in the pipeline as well, and it sort of went
> from there.
> One topic we discussed was how we should handle changes that break
> compatibility of the wire protocol used by ZeroMQ. Given the size of the
> community, it was agreed that if this should happen, it would better be
> done sooner rather than later, as a new major revision (and thus most
> likely in a new repository like zeromq3), in an extensible way and with
> a long-enough period of warning before the change. The rationale behind
> this discussion is that some of the desired features (see below) like
> port multiplexing require some enhancements to the headers sent by
> ZeroMQ.
> Amongst the proposed functionality were:
>  * graceful validation of a connection, i.e. have a clearly defined
>    behavior when someone tries to connect to incompatible socket types
>    together. This would be achieved by transmitting the socket type on
>    the wire at connection time, with some check on the server side to
>    validate this is an acceptable mix and match;
>  * port multiplexing, which would allow sharing of a single listening
>    port for multiple sockets, using the concept of "sub ports". This
>    would obviously only be possible within the same ZMQ context
>    (because ultimately only one bind(port) can be requested from the
>    kernel for a given port number), but would allow someone to attach
>    several sockets to this one listening port, and to connect to
>    different sockets on one remote port.
>    You could for example say:
>      zmq_bind(socket1, "*:5555.0");
>      zmq_bind(socket2, "*:5555.1");
>    To bind these two sockets to the same listening port, but with
>    different subports. On the client side, you can connect to either
>    of them with:
>       zmq_connect(socket, "server:5555.0");
>    If no subport is specified, bind() would default to all subports,
>    and connect would default to subport 0;
>  * integrate handling of timeouts, re-sends w/ de-dup and eventually
>    checkpointing in REP/REQ sockets, directly as base socket features
>    handled by ZMQ.
>    Timeouts would make using REP/REQ sockets easier so you don't get
>    stuck in the recv() state if you never get an answer.
>    Re-sends would make ZMQ automatically, at periodic and eventually
>    configurable intervals, resend the last message until you get an
>    answer (useful if the other end disappears after receiving the
>    message but before sending a reply). De-duping (on the receiving
>    end) is just a required feature in this case where you're still
>    alive but haven't answered *yet*.
>    Checkpointing would allow ZMQ to send "backchannel" information
>    every N messages to inform the sender you've successfully reached
>    a "checkpoint", and that if the server ever needs to resend data
>    it can do so starting from the last known checkpoint.
> Note that this is a very, very rough summary of what we discussed, and
> may not be entirely accurate -- and for that I apologize. Feel free to
> comment, correct, criticize and contribute to these ideas! ZeroMQ can
> only become better for us users iff we express our needs somehow.
> Martin also reported that he applied on behalf of ZeroMQ as a Google
> Summer of Code organization, and apparently discussion already started
> on that particular subject on this very list. Having SoC students work
> on ZMQ would be a great thing IMHO, so we should make sure we have some
> project ideas (that should be fine) and that we'll welcome candidates
> with open arms :)
> Finally, we briefly talked about automated testing, in particular for
> long-lasting "burn tests" scenarios that would help test core changes to
> ZeroMQ both at the C API level and at the language bindings level. Feel
> free to propose/submit test scenarios and/or their implementations!
> And that's it for tonight! It was a great meetup, thanks again to Loggly
> for hosting, and we hope to see more of you next time!
> - Maxime
> --
> Maxime Petazzoni <http://www.bulix.org>
>  ``One by one, the penguins took away my sanity.''
> Writing software in California
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> iEYEARECAAYFAk13MqEACgkQ7KsOe4Pmrg108ACfYi3VyPaF4bcSz//9ua4jSiFt
> klwAoLL6YoduDXUzTzupoOz6U+WS1L5H
> =L4Pp
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20110309/c8df9b7c/attachment.htm>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list