[zeromq-dev] C++ assertion failed with Java client

Christian Martinez chmar at microsoft.com
Fri Feb 3 18:16:06 CET 2012

First, I have to make a disclaimer that everything I'm about to say is my opinion only and does not reflect any official MSFT position.

Personally I love the give and take and don't feel threatened or upset by any of the shenanigans. I find them a natural part of the OSS process. Before I joined the monolith I used to work exclusively in the OSS world using things like ACE/TAO, MICO, every Java framework imaginable etc... There was never a shortage of interesting discussions/rants.  

What I've observed is that every one of the projects that were successful had a benevolent dictator and a few hard core contributors. As long as that basic infrastructure is there and passion remains then I feel comfortable telling as many folks as possible to check out 0MQ. We've embraced Node and Hadoop very publicly as a company and work deeply with those projects. I'd love it if someday we can do that with 0MQ as well. 

If you're concerned with stability take a branch/build, stick to that and maybe pick up a support contract especially if you're restricted to binary only... 

Well that's enough pontificating ....I'll go back to hacking the broken Node binding now (It breaks under Node's move to libuv ...nothing really to do with 0MQ which I'm barred from hacking directly :(   ) 


-----Original Message-----
From: zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org [mailto:zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org] On Behalf Of AJ Lewis
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:35 AM
To: ZeroMQ development list
Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] C++ assertion failed with Java client

On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:40:03PM +0100, Martin Lucina wrote:
> ph at imatix.com said:
> > So, in summary, let's cut the philosophy and focus on targeted
> > *minimal* patches to solve identified problems.
> +1, although "minimal" is a matter of opinion.
> Pieter, with all due respect, it's a shame that this community is 
> turning into one driven by personal ideology rather than a meritocracy 
> based on quality *technical* contributions. That was not what I signed 
> up for when I started contributing to this project.
> Maybe you could also tone down the ideology a couple of points?

What you're not taking into account with your "meritocracy" idea is all the quiet users of this library that *aren't* contributing patches, but rely on the functionality of the library for their work.  If we're going to tip zmq on it's head because a couple very vocal contributors decide they don't like the way things have been working, it makes me very concerned about continuing to use this project.

Is this something that I can rely on, or will it turn into an open source project that bounces all over the place depending on the whims of the contributor of the week?  I want people to contribute - I'm very happy that my fixes for various platforms have been accepted without issue - but I am concerned that project could be hijacked by someone that has a very specific use case for it and doesn't understand the history and philosophy of the proejct and what its current users are doing with it.

/me goes back to lurking...
AJ Lewis
Software Engineer
Quantum Corporation

Work:    651 688-4346

The information contained in this transmission may be confidential. Any disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential information is not permitted unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by Quantum. Quantum reserves the right to have electronic communications, including email and attachments, sent across its networks filtered through anti virus and spam software programs and retain such messages in order to comply with applicable data security and retention requirements. Quantum is not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the substance of this communication or for any delay in its receipt.
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list