[zeromq-dev] Notes from a hackathon

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Fri Feb 6 09:53:27 CET 2015


We should not touch this, if it's working and stable and people
actually use it. The nice thing about multiframing is you can push and
pop addresses without decoding the rest of the message. Honestly I
don't see a cleaner way to do multihop, except perhaps to reduce
message size (integer routing IDs instead of the 5-byte or longer IDs
used today).

-Pieter



On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding multihope on ZProto we can have a stack of routing id (that will
> be serialized to the wire) and a method called reply and a method call
> forward. What do you think?
>
> On Feb 6, 2015 10:09 AM, "Pieter Hintjens" <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:41 PM, AJ Lewis <AJ.Lewis at quantum.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Is the plan really to drop multi-hop routing?
>>
>> I did want, and am glad to get, stories from people using multihop
>> routing.
>>
>> I think the situation here is that we're using the multihop
>> request-reply pattern, it depends on multipart, and that's fine. It's
>> a standard, it's implemented, and it's stable.
>>
>> So we can focus on new patterns (like client/server) quite separately,
>> and if we make threadsafe sockets, perhaps use them only in these new
>> cases.
>>
>> -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
>



More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list