[zeromq-dev] Alternative efficiency design of lbbroker

[Kenneth Adam Miller]

Oh I apologize. I was just asking if what I was thinking of was possible
with zeromq.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:

> > In any case, does what I am thinking about work?
>
> It's usually a good idea to make small pieces, and grow your
> understanding of your problem and alternative solutions like that.
> No-one here can do that for you.
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller
> <kennethadammiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Instead of routing all information through the broker and requiring an
> > intermediary hop, I'd like to consider an approach where the address
> > information that the req socket parses out on the side that first sends
> > ready is used in order to manage a simple mutual connection facilitator
> in
> > ZMQ...
> >
> > Just like with load balancing broker from the manual, I have two parties
> > that mutually require one another. But I want to do simply a request to
> the
> > broker and receive the information I need in order to send directly to
> the
> > other entity.
> >
> > With router sockets, I get the address in a empty delimited set of
> message
> > sending convention. What I don't know is if I add a router socket to each
> > mutually requiring party, and -even if party A is not connected even to
> > party B- use the address information attained from the broker to send on
> > party A's router socket to party B and vice versa. Is this the best way
> to
> > do this? I don't want to manage a set of connected sockets.
> >
> > I realize that party A may have individual 1 and party B an individual 2
> > where 1 & 2 repeatedly make connection over broker-I want to keep using
> > broker anyway, because broker allows each party to know when an
> individual
> > is ready in each. So the 1& 2 scenario is coincidental.
> >
> > But what I don't think is a good design idea is having a socket that
> makes
> > connect/close calls between each iteration to the broker or the idea of
> > having each endpoint know it's hostname or something (possibly I have
> > premature misgivings).
> >
> > In any case, does what I am thinking about work? Reading the target
> address
> > information gained from a router object and feeding it to a completely
> > different router object (where individual 1 may not have ever had his
> router
> > connected to individual 2 before)?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20150112/45bc7db2/attachment.htm>