[zeromq-dev] Storm rejecting ZeroMQ

[Charles Remes]

Zed's issues were with the widespread use of "assert" in the code base. Also, at that time, the library did very little validation of incoming data so it was easy to crash the library using a fuzzing attack. Again, most (all?) of those concerns have been resolved with 3.2 and later.

It's hard to say if the Nitro folks think 3.2+ resolves their earlier concerns or if their decision to roll their own still holds up. I imagine it was probably a good idea for their use-case considering they have 10s of thousands of mostly quiescent connections in a pub/sub format, so they need a more efficient subscription filtering mechanism. I think Nanomsg has solved some of this too by using a different kind of trie to track subscriptions.

cr

On Aug 26, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Steven McCoy <steven.mccoy at miru.hk> wrote:

> On 26 August 2013 11:22, Andy Pook <andy.pook at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing above 2.1.7 works … It just a weird, very unstable piece of
> software. It could have been a really awesome library. But it just has all
> these weird problems with it.
> 
> Didn't Zed Shaw also have similar comments, presumably the people behind Nitro too?
> 
> I think a lot of these were resolved and Pieter introduced the new workflow to ensure things don't break similarly in future.
> 
> -- 
> Steve-o 
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20130826/d3d29e18/attachment.htm>