[zeromq-dev] Feedback on new PATCH socket

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Sat May 7 12:09:30 CEST 2011

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> wrote:
> Adding and remove
>> the delimiter is a bit artificial but since ROUTER is part of a lot
>> of pattern in the Guide, with all the same requirement of adding the
>> delimiter, I wonder why it couldn't be part of the standard socket.
> This is part of the XREP vs. ROUTER confusion. XREP cannot add delimiter
> because it's meant to reside in the middle of the topology, forwarding
> request and replies to the next hop.

Martin, you tend to disparage anything you don't like or understand as
"a hack" or "confusion". There is really no confusion *between* XREP
and ROUTER except perhaps in your mind. The real confusion exists
because (a) the old names convey the wrong information, (b) you keep
claiming a role for XREQ/XREP that can't be justified and isn't
orthogonal with other socket patterns, and (c) the actual envelope
management is pretty complex, being split asymmetrically over three
socket types (REQ, ROUTER, REP). Lack of symmetry and bad names make
the design really hard to figure out.

The answer to Fabien is that the ROUTER doesn't add a delimiter
because that's specific to the REP socket semantics, whereas ROUTER
can usefully speak to REQ, REP, DEALER, and other ROUTER sockets.


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list