[zeromq-dev] New Projects: NetMQ.WebSockets and JSMQ

Doron Somech somdoron at gmail.com
Thu Jun 26 23:43:24 CEST 2014


Pieter, Michael, I created a raw RFC, let me know what you think:

https://github.com/somdoron/rfc/blob/master/spec_39.txt

Michael, send me your github user I will add you as collaborator (also feel
free to add yourself as editor and contributor to the RFC).

Regards,

Doron


On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:

> Nice. The RFCs are also in zeromq/rfc on GitHub.
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will create a page at http://rfc.zeromq.org/ and will cover the
> framing,
> > but I will only get it on the weekend...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Michael Haberler <mail17 at mah.priv.at>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Doron,
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 24.06.2014 um 09:36 schrieb Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > what do you mean "ZMTP/multiple destination URI's dance"?
> >>
> >> well, I see the choices being either a pretty complete ZMTP
> implementation
> >> on the JS side of things - then you can multiplex, connect several
> socket
> >> destinations in JS and so forth; or one uses URI options, and the
> proxy's
> >> functionality, and only multipart framing is done over the ws
> connection; I
> >> prefer the latter because the first option looks like significant
> effort for
> >> no clear upside
> >>
> >> >
> >> > He can create a page under http://rfc.zeromq.org/, anyway some of my
> >> > thoughts:
> >> > * Regarding using URI, i think we should use that for resource sharing
> >> > (binding multiple sockets on same port with different service name),
> we can
> >> > also use that for socket type (maybe as fragment) I'm not sure we
> should
> >> > support identifies (I'm not sure what the gain for that).
> >>
> >> It does make sense at times to have clients legibly identified, eg in
> >> logs; it's not much extra cost, just a URI k/v pair
> >>
> >> > * We can transfer the protocol version on the
>  "Sec-WebSocket-Protocol"
> >> > and later support server that can support multiple client versions.
> >>
> >> that is a clever idea, I like it!
> >>
> >> > * should we only support strings (UTF8)? Because the framing for UTF8
> >> > and binary is different
> >>
> >> I dont see any value in that atm, but I might be missing something;
> again
> >> I had that as a k/v option in the URI
> >>
> >> > * I don't think we should start with multiplexing, I think it very
> >> > complicated to do it right.
> >>
> >> nope, KISS wins the day
> >>
> >> > Other than that, lets start :-).
> >>
> >> how do we start on the multipart framing writeup? You sketch it, or I
> >> disassemble your code ;-?
> >>
> >> One issue we need to think through is the handling of identities - eg if
> >> due to zmq proxies several identities are assembled, delimited with a
> >> zero-length frame; the options are either to pass those through via WS
> >> as-is, or maybe handle them at proxy proper if that is to be the last
> zeromq
> >> endpoint having a visible identity
> >>
> >>
> >> cheers - Michael
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Doron
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Michael Haberler <mail17 at mah.priv.at
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > Hi Doron,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Am 23.06.2014 um 14:30 schrieb Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Michael,
> >> > >
> >> > > You are right, every message start with ascii code of 1 or 0 to
> >> > > indicate if more to come, regarding the RFC, I think it will be
> great.
> >> > >
> >> > > We should think about more stuff like port sharing (multiple sockets
> >> > > on same port each with different URI) and sub protocols validation
> (for
> >> > > PubSub, Request Reply).
> >> >
> >> > Assuming we write up a recommendation/method to map zeromq onto
> >> > websockets as an RFC-style document, I see several aspects to the
> task:
> >> >
> >> > - define a mapping how multiframe messages are en/decoded, assuming
> the
> >> > current ws connection handles a single connection (say a
> dealer/router or
> >> > xsub/xpub pair); that would essentially cover non-mutilation of the
> frame
> >> > structure, but not aspects like multiple destinations handled in one
> socket
> >> > - do the whole ZMTP/multiple destination URI's dance on the JS side.
> >> > - multiplexing several sockets over a single ws connection
> >> > - define if the ws connect URI (which can be viewed as pre-connect,
> out
> >> > of band information) is used to carry extra setup, like carry socket
> type,
> >> > identity, make the proxy connect to several target URI's etc
> >> >
> >> > The first step IMO is essential; curious - does your scheme proxy
> >> > zero-length frames properly? I'm not fully up to speed on ws specs if
> >> > zero-length frames are passed properly.
> >> > In my application scenario I dont have any upside for (2) and (3), and
> >> > I'm a bit concerned about feature creep
> >> > I think (4) would cover much of (2)
> >> > (2) and (3) would probably require more complex framing than just (1)
> >> > and (4), which would be my preferred goal
> >> >
> >> > I think the decision to take is 'full ZMTP JS-side' and more complex
> >> > framing, versus one ws connection mapped onto a socket (which may
> connect to
> >> > several URI's at the proxy), and simpler framing. I fear the framing
> methods
> >> > would be incompatible if one started with the second goal and tried to
> >> > achieve to the first thereafter, for what I see limited upside.
> >> >
> >> > What I propose is we formulate the framing procedure for the
> >> > single-socket connection case for a start, and go from there.
> >> >
> >> > - Michael
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > >
> >> > > Doron
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Michael Haberler <
> mail17 at mah.priv.at>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > Hi Doron,
> >> > >
> >> > > Am 23.06.2014 um 10:25 schrieb Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi All,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'd like to introduce two new projects I'm working on:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > https://github.com/somdoron/JSMQ - ZeroMQ/NetMQ javascript client
> >> > > > over WebSockets
> >> > > > https://github.com/somdoron/NetMQ.WebSockets - WebSockets
> extension
> >> > > > to NetMQ, uses stream socket type and provide a new socket object
> that has
> >> > > > very similar interface to NetMQ socket object.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Both available on nuget (include prerelease) and at a beta stage.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You can read more about the projects at my blog:
> >> > > > http://somdoron.com/2014/06/introducing-netmq-websockets-jsmq/
> >> > >
> >> > > very interesting since I'm on a related venture - relaying zmq
> >> > > router/dealer and xsub/xpub to JS via libwebsockets (C++)
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm a complete JS retard, but if I understand your JSMQ layer right
> it
> >> > > essential wraps multipart frames (with leading 0/1 per frame ==
> MORE flag)
> >> > > over ws frames so they can be assembled/sent from normal zmq
> multipart
> >> > > frames in the proxy, and message structure retained?
> >> > >
> >> > > if this is so I'll adopt your scheme for the zmq/ws proxy I'm
> working
> >> > > on, because preservation of multiframe messages on the ws side is
> an open
> >> > > issue for me, and with your approach it would be more 'end-to-end',
> the
> >> > > zmq/ws proxy being a zeromq proxy proper in terms of socket identity
> >> > >
> >> > > maybe this kind of ws framing warrants a bit of an RFC? happy to
> >> > > co-author - could help interoperability downstream
> >> > >
> >> > > - Michael
> >> > >
> >> > > ps: where I am : http://goo.gl/4TfWBh
> >> > >
> >> > > nonobvious aspects are:
> >> > > - a key feature is automatic JSON <-> protobuf conversion since we
> use
> >> > > protobuf-over-zmq internally, see: http://goo.gl/9OEcHY and
> >> > > http://goo.gl/sY6sEI respectively
> >> > > - I use URI arguments to drive proxy behavior: http://goo.gl/FVddoJ
> -
> >> > > rather flexible to tack on this or that option, uses liburiparser
> >> > >   a client-side URI to connect to the proxy could look like so:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Doron
> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > 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
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > 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
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20140627/3af5ef24/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list