[zeromq-dev] More on ZDCF

Paul Colomiets paul at colomiets.name
Fri Mar 23 23:58:22 CET 2012


Hi Pieter,

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Paul Colomiets <paul at colomiets.name> wrote:
>
>> Is there any good reason to specify both, socket types and device type?
>
> You can, and people sometimes do, mix these. Otherwise, indeed it's not useful.
>

Sure. Checking that both sockets match accomplishes task, isn't it?
And the thing I really do mix is name of the device, comparing to socket
types. So I still propose to make all built-in types be implicit (and of course
all the application specific devices must be explicitly specified).

BTW, why only frontend socket type is specified in examples?

>> Is there any good reason to specify "xrep" vs "rep" socket types?
>> I think it's implementation defined of whether it supports request
>> multiplexing or other specific features of "x" kind of socket.
>
> I renamed xrep/xreq to router/dealer.
>

If the page still shows old names. But still any practical difference
between xrep and router or xreq and dealer for devices?
There is no xpub/xsub sockets, is that a mistake?

-- 
Paul



More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list