[zeromq-dev] Pull request to retire "devices" and replace with "proxies"
pelletier.michel at gmail.com
Sat Sep 8 07:58:49 CEST 2012
I agree with Brian, proxy doesn't feel any better to me. I'm not
saying device is a good name, but it argues against changing it unless
the new name is better.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 4:53 AM, MinRK <benjaminrk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>... but at least I can tell them to email Pieter :)
> :-) of course.
>> Yes, I would certainly do that. But deprecating names is not significantly
>> less painful than simply changing them, as people still have to update their
>> code in the exact same way, just not so abruptly. And they will rightfully
>> complain that they are getting nothing for their trouble.
> Well, we've had this discussion a few times... my view is that it's
> never too late to clear up confusing names.
> We forget the pain it took to learn 0MQ initially. Explaining it again
> from scratch, it's clear where we can improve things.
> "Device" is one of those concepts that always seemed harder to learn
> than it should have been. "Proxy" isn't an ideal name, but it does
> seem to cover most use cases, and should be much easier to grasp for
> new users.
> So what's the benefit of this change?
> My hope is that as "proxy" sticks better as a concept, people will
> actually invest in the built-in proxy, as they never did in devices.
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
More information about the zeromq-dev