[zeromq-dev] Pull request to retire "devices" and replace with "proxies"
benjaminrk at gmail.com
Fri Sep 7 20:39:23 CEST 2012
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Ian Barber <ian.barber at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > From https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/422
> LGTM. I think the proxy name fits the concept better, particularly
> with the capture socket option (which is very akin to the monitored
> device in pyzmq iirc). It kind of frees up the language as well - if
> someone does want to build a little service that does some work they
> can call it a device without it being confused with the zmq_device
> function to - though as you say that hasn't happened that much!
I agree that proxy is a better name,
though I am not certain the cost of renaming is outweighed by the better
I have a practical question as maintainer of pyzmq.
PyZMQ has a notion of 'devices', e.g.
from zmq.devices import monitored_queue
for the device derivative Ian alluded to, or
from zmq.devices import ThreadDevice
for a class that runs zmq_device in a GIL-less background thread
Does this suggest that I should now be moving these to zmq.proxies, and
I know I will get loads of complaints from users for changing APIs simply
because the name is better,
but at least I can tell them to email Pieter :)
One comment on the capture socket: When I wrote the monitored queue which
does essentially the same thing,
I needed direction information (whether the message came from the frontend
or the backend), rather than
just publishing everything as-is. This allows a design where one SUB
socket can monitor messages
from a collection of proxies, and know where messages are coming from
(frontend/backend as well as which proxy).
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the zeromq-dev