[zeromq-dev] Pattern for clean shutdown of a proxy loop

Pieter Hintjens pieterh at gmail.com
Fri Mar 21 05:02:37 CET 2014


This patch would go into the next stable, which is 4.0.5.
On Mar 21, 2014 3:06 AM, "Cosmo Harrigan" <cosmo.harrigan at singularityu.org>
wrote:

> If this fix is backported without incrementing the minor version number,
> then it presents the challenge of how to identify whether the functionality
> is present on a particular system when wrapping it in a language binding,
> because version 4.0.4 could refer both to the prior version without the
> functionality, or to the later version with the functionality.
>
> Cosmo
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:43 PM, MinRK <benjaminrk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Amending the rules is fine, I just wanted to point out that you can't
>> > backport new features without updating the minor version number within
>> the
>> > current definitions of libzmq minor and patch versions.
>> >
>> > As an author and user of the pyzmq bindings, there is no cost to me in
>> > failing to backport the steerable function. I have used zmq_proxy daily
>> > (since it was called zmq_device), with no issue.  I don't actually have
>> any
>> > plan to expose the steerable version in pyzmq, because it doesn't offer
>> any
>> > real benefit in that context.
>> >
>> > I don't think the steerable version of the function belongs in libzmq at
>> > all, so backporting it seems a bit silly to me.
>>
>> Points taken. It's arguable that such code belongs in libzmq at all.
>> Clearly people do like it, and we know that moving common
>> functionality into libzmq can be profitable. For CZMQ I rewrote the
>> proxy code though.
>>
>> There is a tendency to wrap CZMQ instead of libzmq, and that may
>> resolve this old discussion of what belongs where. I think few people
>> are using the raw libzmq API any longer, so it's a bit moot.
>>
>> WRT versioning, our rules don't specify it (any more, unless I've
>> missed something). We used to refer to semantic versioning, but that
>> opened the door to catastrophic release shifts (2.x vs 3.x vs 4.x).
>>
>> -Pieter
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140321/61469721/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list