[zeromq-dev] conventions in bindings

Gary Wright at2002+zmq at me.com
Thu Feb 2 18:09:47 CET 2012

On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Gary Wright <at2002+zmq at me.com> wrote:
>> message:
>> fragment:
>> frame:
> Makes sense. "fragment" is long, for an API word. But in fact the only
> real issue to solve here is consistency: any semantics will work, if
> repeated consistently.

I don't think that the length is particularly important when you are
talking about the abstract concepts (documentation, guide, specifications).

When you switch to talking about the particular identifiers used in
a particular implementation or language binding then you need to
consider length as well as the appropriate idioms and practices of
the language while also trying to accurately reflect the terminology
used in the specification.

"There are only two hard problems in Computer Science:
  cache invalidation and naming things."

  -- Phil Karlton

> So there will be a lot of changes to make in
> bindings, code, and docs. Anyone proposing changes has to be willing
> to take this work on. There is no other way it will happen. ("I think
> someone should do X" does not work and never has).

Finally, I do want to emphasize that my comments have been in
the spirit of better understanding ZMQ and its terminology. That doesn't
*necessarily* translate to a desire to go on a renaming spree with
the libzmq source code. Changing deployed APIs, even if it is just
renaming, shouldn't be done casually.

Gary Wright

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list