[zeromq-dev] conventions in bindings

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Wed Feb 1 13:10:39 CET 2012

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:17 PM, MinRK <benjaminrk at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this is a discussion that would be good to have now, because
> libzmq-3.1.x becoming stable may be a good time for some shifts APIs and
> convention for bindings.
> Perhaps we can discuss this further in Portland next month.

It's a discussion I've been trying to push for some time, since it
became clear that the low level API was going to remain too simple for
practical use in (at least) C applications. I think erlzmq was the
first to do automatic socket shutdown.

So there is a page from last year where I collected the plausible
common abstractions: http://www.zeromq.org/topics:binding-abstractions

I like the idea of adding 3.1 back-support via bindings, for stuff
like HWM=1000.

Regarding message terminology, the *only* problem we have is confusion
between message and parts of a message. Inventing new concepts will be
costly. Since 0MQ's protocol is essentially built on a framing layer,
see http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:13, the term "frame" is an existing,
accurate concept we should reuse rather than invent random new ones.
I'm quite adamant about _not_ inventing new concepts unless we
absolutely need to.

Portland will be a great opportunity to discuss this.


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list