[zeromq-dev] Porting libzmq to C++11
Harald Achitz
harald.achitz at gmail.com
Thu May 18 19:05:12 CEST 2017
not libzmq11 but libzmq117 targeting libzmq20 and beyond, and I mean this
seriously,
I am glad someone asks this question.
It is not about fashion, being cool or using the latest and greatest.
If you know what modern C++ gives you, on secure and fast code, than
everything is clear to you.
If you have not learned - or see the reason - why, discussions here about
the advantage are pointless.
I know this discussion from work, and from other places. Its always the
same.
At the end, the modernized code is always better. Shorter, more clear, more
secure, less error prone
just m2c
/Harald
2017-05-18 11:55 GMT+02:00 Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com>:
> I suggest porting and not rewrite, a lot of rewrite attempts failed before.
> Rewrite takes years to stabilize and usually users don't see the benefit
> from switching when they are happy with the current version.
>
> Who is taking the lead and forking libzmq?
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Aram Santogidis <aram.santogidis at cern.ch
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> a good reason to modernize the codebase, or even better to create a new
>> project ala libzmq11, is to help its evolution with new networking
>> technologies and software engineering practices.
>>
>> As an example, consider the difficulties many faced (including myself) in
>> extending ZeroMQ to support RDMA-based networking interfaces. The current
>> design and implementation is hostile to such extensions. Honestly, C++98 or
>> not, I think it still can be done but with major cost in development effort
>> and additional complexity to an already complex codebase.
>>
>> Moving to C++11 and beyond is not merely an argument of fashion, as some
>> of you implied, but it is vital for its future.
>> C++ and related technologies evolve and libzmq stays behind. New
>> developers are reluctant to contribute once they have a look at the current
>> design and implementation (old school C++ roughly speaking).
>>
>> Think for example when networking will be included in the standard, how
>> much ugly code that juggles platform differences could be eliminated from
>> the current implementation. Same applies for threading, which is in the
>> standard since C++11.
>>
>> I don't underestimate the importance (and the size?) of the current
>> userbase. I'm aware from first-hand experience about some fairly critical
>> software that relies on libzmq.
>>
>> I guess the idea is to create i) a new project in the ZeroMQ organization
>> that ii) implements ZMTP and iii) the non-depricated ZMQ socket types. The
>> public API of libzmq should be a subset of the libzmq11 so that will
>> facilitate the transition of users, in the long term, that do not run on
>> legacy systems.
>>
>> I will happily contribute to such an effort provided that there will be
>> at least one or two experienced members from the community that will join
>> this effort.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Aram
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17.05.2017 16:54, BJovke . wrote:
>>
>>> Well, you're right. There must be a good reason for such an undertaking.
>>> I too feel that C++11 itself is not good enough reason.
>>> Anyway there has to be enough people willing to contribute to it.
>>>
>>> I was just saying this because no idea should be discarded right away,
>>> but for sure there needs to be a valid need and reason for it.
>>>
>>> Greetings.
>>>
>>> 2017-05-17 16:15 GMT+02:00 Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:somdoron at gmail.com>>:
>>>
>>> What will be the benefit from moving to C++11? And more important
>>> what is the benefit from having two projects? one supporting C++11
>>> and one not?
>>>
>>> I think that maintaining two repositories is hard and not sure for
>>> what cause?
>>>
>>> Anyway, if some one want to do it, in the zeromq philosophy, please
>>> fork and add the project to the zeromq organization.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:29 PM, <lists at chuckremes.com
>>> <mailto:lists at chuckremes.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On May 17, 2017, at 7:56 AM, BJovke . <bjovan at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:bjovan at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hello.
>>> >
>>> > Libzmq is not even fully C++ compliant:
>>> > - There's no exception handling.
>>> > - There are no RAII principles implemented.
>>> > - Parent/child object hierarchy is loose or not implemented,
>>> all of the burden of proper order of calls is on programmer.
>>> >
>>> > And so on...
>>> >
>>> > C++11 is really a remarkable feat of engineering and me
>>> personally like to see fully C++11 implemented software.
>>> > Unfortunately, for libzmq this would require substantial
>>> rewrite of the library.
>>> >
>>> > Maybe there's an option to create another parallel branch to
>>> existing libzmq or even create another product, for example "libzmq11"?
>>> > On the wire this could be 100% compatible with non-C++11
>>> libzmq but there would be 0% chance to compile older projects with it.
>>>
>>> This is a good time to bring out some old blog posts. Martin
>>> Sustrik was the original developer of libzmq. He had some
>>> thoughts on why he should have written the library in C instead
>>> of C++. Here you go:
>>>
>>> http://250bpm.com/blog:4
>>>
>>> http://250bpm.com/blog:8
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>> <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>> <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jovan Bunjevački.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20170518/00ce3e6d/attachment.htm>
More information about the zeromq-dev
mailing list