[zeromq-dev] ZMTP 3.0 Status: Sharing Single TCP connection (Example code ?)

[Yannick Koehler]

I may be missing something here, so I am looking for someone with
architectural/design knowledge of those component to indicate how a
good fit or not they are and what "showstopper" issue I may encounter.

I am not looking for an existing solution (unless one exists), but
mostly trying to validate a plan I have from expert in this field
already.

2013/6/7 Yannick Koehler <yannick at koehler.name>:
> Ok, so let's say I have a bridge, so I have internally multiple TCP
> connections going towards my bridge which then has to multiplex all
> those zeroMQ TCP connection into the websockets protocol.  The
> websockets protocol doesn't have sub-channel, I will then have to
> build a multiplexing/demultiplexing protocols.
>
> My understanding is that ZMTP 3.0 is such a thing, and therfefore if I
> go create a web socket connection like this:
>
> GET /broker HTTP/1.1
> Host: server.example.com
> Upgrade: websocket
> Connection: Upgrade
> Sec-WebSocket-Key: x3JJHMbDL1EzLkh9GBhXDw==
> Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: zmtp-3.0
> Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13
> Origin: http://example.com
>
> Then I will have to encapsulate messages/commands of ZeroMQ within
> WebSockets messages/frames.
>
> My assumption here is that I will be losing batch performance because
> I am going through a bridge not build using the batch philosophy, and
> that I will be using 2 framing mechanism one on top of the other for
> the exact same purpose, which looks to me like a waste.
>
> I could certainly try that at first, but then investing in that will
> not give an optimal solution, so why should I not invest in the
> optimal solution which appears to be making the zeromq
> message/command/fragment system works on top of websocket
> message/fragment system and use ZMTP 3.0 as the multiplexing solution.
>
> Then my bridge will still exists but at least it talks zeroMQ on all
> it's underlying nodes that it bridge together.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
>
> 2013/6/7 Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>:
>> If you want to talk to web servers, you really should use an existing
>> websocket proxy or bridge IMO.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Yannick Koehler <yannick at koehler.name> wrote:
>>> Stepping back was my actual next step, before investing I needed to make
>>> sure that the requirement that I have were met or would be met in a
>>> relatively close future.  I need a persistent (yet recoverable since
>>> connection still could be dropped) TCP connection to a web server (re-using
>>> existing port ala websocket) that offer message based bi-directional and
>>> allow multiplexing subchannels that offers a messaging API on top of it, and
>>> ideally a PUSH/PULL method supporting REST on top.
>>>
>>> If ZeroMQ can't offer that in the next year, it would be a waste of my time
>>> to step back and use ZeroMQ as its currently offered, knowing that next year
>>> I still won't have what I need.
>>>
>>> So right now, in order for me to progress on my project with ZeroMQ, I need
>>> to understand if my needs can be somewhat met, by actual code or by
>>> implementing it in the time frame that I have, so basically, I need to know
>>> how "utopic" that would be.
>>>
>>> I totally understand that not having this requirement above, I could achieve
>>> the same with multiple simultaneous and short lived connections and learn
>>> the ZeroMQ way/API but that requirement so far is not something I can drop
>>> that easily.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/6/7 Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Yannick Koehler <yannick at koehler.name>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >   I have a need where for firewall penetration and simplicity to have a
>>>> > single TCP connection between my clients and servers.  My understanding
>>>> > is
>>>> > that ZMTP 3.0 is offering this.  It is also my understanding that right
>>>> > now
>>>> > this is not yet stable or usable in a production environment, is this
>>>> > assertion true?
>>>>
>>>> It's specified in ZMTP 3.0 but not implemented in libzmq yet.
>>>>
>>>> >   I will download libzmq and try to find out on my own, but would really
>>>> > appreciate some pointer as to the state of this kind of usage and best
>>>> > practices...
>>>>
>>>> My advice is to step back from what you want to make, and instead
>>>> spend a few days learning the 0MQ patterns and semantics by working
>>>> through the Guide. When it "clicks" for you, go back to your problem
>>>> and make a simple minimal design. Then develop that little by little.
>>>> If you try to make the real architecture directly, it will usually not
>>>> work due to the many wrong assumptions you have about how 0MQ works,
>>>> and you'll be disappointed with 0MQ.
>>>>
>>>> -Pieter
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>>>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Yannick Koehler
>>> Courriel: yannick at koehler.name
>>> Blog: http://corbeillepensees.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Yannick Koehler
> Courriel: yannick at koehler.name
> Blog: http://corbeillepensees.blogspot.com



-- 
Yannick Koehler
Courriel: yannick at koehler.name
Blog: http://corbeillepensees.blogspot.com