[zeromq-dev] conventions in bindings

Gary Wright 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:

packet/fragment  (IP/UDP)
packet/cell      (ATM)
message/chunks  (SCTP)
record/fragment  (TLS/SSL)

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?

Gary Wright

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list