[zeromq-dev] Fundamental perks?

Kenneth Adam Miller kennethadammiller at gmail.com
Thu May 14 15:34:03 CEST 2015

Oh thank god! Someone that understands!

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:

> Why even use an operating system? It's far safer to write the code
> straight into hardware.
> Seriously, anyone trying do build distributed systems who is not using
> some kind of abstraction layer because of the extra dependency is... well,
> they've not understood the different costs / benefits.
> Without a messaging library of some kind you have to deal with dozens or
> hundreds of issues in every single connection. The BSD socket API is very
> low level. You have to handle all kinds of errors, some by retrying, some
> by giving up, some by trying something different. To get any performance at
> all you must build an event-driven framework so you can read and write as
> sockets are ready, rather than blocking. To deal with more than a single
> socket this becomes essential. Then you have to frame your data and deal
> with edge cases and invalid data.
> At the least you want to hide this from developers, because they will get
> it wrong over and over, and this causes far worse complexity and
> dependencies than using a mature and proven library.
> it's easy to count. Hand-written TCP code measures thousands of lines for
> any given case. The same code using a messaging API counts a few dozen.
> Now, whether you use ZeroMQ or something else is secondary. ZeroMQ removes
> the need for brokers, though they can help in some cases.
> When you introduce technology to a business you will often get resistance
> for reasons that have nothing to do with the technology itself.
> -Pieter
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller <
> kennethadammiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, recently in the workforce the discussion came up that despite all of
>> the nice work that has been accomplished with ZMQ, it should be removed
>> because using it as a component for distributed analysis creates
>> complication. Much to my dismay, they cannot be convinced otherwise, and
>> see dependencies only as potential breakage and configuration nightmare.
>> But our use case still needs to communicate between processes in the new
>> model proposed. The idea is for regular raw sockets to be used to
>> communicate between processes, because this would be the only
>> communication, and the linux kernel would automatically replace any
>> localhost communication with inter process communication (?).
>> What fundamental benefits in such a use case does using ZMQ provide?
>> Things like OS interrupts, OS abstraction, ect... I'm pretty sure that ZMQ
>> does at least hide some complexity in buffering what it receives.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150514/fa8c3916/attachment.htm>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list