[zeromq-dev] Pull request to retire "devices" and replace with "proxies"
cfkaran2 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 8 12:23:18 CEST 2012
How about 'adaptor'? The various devices I've seen remind me a bit of something like that.
On Sep 8, 2012, at 1:58 AM, Michel Pelletier wrote:
> 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
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1581 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the zeromq-dev