[zeromq-dev] Behavior of Labels, Identities, and Socket Types in 3.0

[Chuck Remes]

On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:

> On 10/27/2011 03:19 PM, AJ Lewis wrote:
> 
>>> So, please, if you are using labels and you mind about reverting back
>>> to 2.1-style protocol, shout now!
>> 
>> Is there a strong reason to not move forward with the new label
>> protocol in 3.0?  It seems like it's had reasonable support on the list
>> (the main complaint has been consistency AFAICS).  Would it be a bunch
>> of work to make things consistent using the new label model?
>> 
>> I've not dug into the 3.0 model extensively, but it makes sense to me to
>> split the envelopes out of the data parts of the message and put them
>> into the protocol itself.
> 
> The current codebase is somewhere on the halfway between old system 
> based on multi-part messages alone and a system using labels consistently.
> 
> AFAIU this is causing problems with usability of 3.0, issues like 
> "example X in guild is written for version 2.1 but it doesn't work with 
> 3.0" etc.
> 
> That's why I proposed reverting to old behaviour.
> 
> If people are happy with existing 3.0 behaviour, all it means is less 
> work for me :)

I like the concept of differentiating the envelope/labels from the message body. I would like to keep labels.

Using an empty packet as a delimiter between envelope and body was a good first try, but labels are superior.

IMHO.

cr