[zeromq-dev] conventions in bindings
at2002+zmq at me.com
Wed Feb 1 06:11:40 CET 2012
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 15:43, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> IMHO the terminology here is a bit confusing. First, "frame" is a bad word to use because that is
> a technical term which refers to "on the wire" packaging of data.
I don't think the problem with 'frame' is that it is associated with the 'wire' as link-layer data can be run on top of all sorts of channels (e.g. PPPoE: PPP over Ethernet).
The problem with 'frame' is that frames are generally viewed as independent from each other at that level of the network stack. The parts of a multi-part ZMQ message aren't independent and so I don't think that frame is quite right.
I do think consistent terminology for ZMQ messages and the message-pieces would be helpful. Some analogous naming systems:
I think message/fragment fits pretty well. It is confusing that the data structure holding a 'fragment' is called zmq_msg_t but I'm not sure that renaming core data types is a good use of developer time. Perhaps future language bindings could take advantage of more consistent naming though?
More information about the zeromq-dev