[zeromq-dev] Comments on ZRE
ph at imatix.com
Mon Feb 18 19:55:23 CET 2013
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Michel Pelletier
<pelletier.michel at gmail.com> wrote:
> For the ZRE "chat" protocol, yes, it can only be a ROUTER, but the udp
> beacon protocol is useful to broadcast the existence of PUB/PUSH sockets as
> service sources and SUB/PULL as service sinks. The protocol spoken from
> that point forward wouldn't be ZRE (ie, whisper, shout, etc.) but it's still
> useful to have generic socket discovery.
If we provide physical socket information we also have to specify
whether it's bound or connected.
We could alternatively specify a protocol mechanism, e.g. "ZRE" that
the beacon carries, which implies a specific socket type and
bind/connect direction, and if needed, transport. I'd prefer that.
Then the beacon protocol can become a general-use service discovery
protocol as you envision. Each service would be specified as a profile
formally, or informally.
In that case, I'd revert the changes to RFC 20 and leave it as-is, and
then start a new pair of RFCs. One for the beacon protocol and one for
a new ZRE that uses it.
> On a crazier note, I think this would be a very useful core feature of 0mq.
Perhaps a zbeacon class in CZMQ? Then other languages can reimplement
it (like zloop in JZMQ), or wrap it (as Perl-ZMQ wraps CZMQ).
More information about the zeromq-dev