[zeromq-dev] Porting libzmq to C++11
Harald Achitz
harald.achitz at gmail.com
Fri May 19 20:09:33 CEST 2017
libzmq11 is not enough, as said, until this is usable c++17 will be old.
C++14 is indeed a bugfix version of C++11, but a very required one.
C++17 is big and important, do not believe what some less relevant people
write in the net.
the next big thing is c++20, modules, concepts, maybe even network.
hopefully reflections
Please, those who not like it, I know Martins post about C++, ignore this.
If you are not interested in a modern C++ zmq implementation, this is OK,
but leaf this topic alone.
Modernizing the existing implementation is not an option, using it as a
templat to look what to do, and how - or how not - is an option.
maybe a modern C++ implementation will ever exist and this is just
discussion, but I find it nice that I am not the only one thinking about
that.
and who knows, if one person was able to make a zmq implementation in java,
why not in modern c++
I think it is enough to be able to communicate with a libzmq implementation
/Harald
2017-05-19 18:24 GMT+02:00 Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com>:
> We need to maintain libzmq as it the stable repository. I suggest a new
> project, maybe called libzmq11.
>
> I think we should fork and update the code and not a rewrite. IMHO Rewrite
> will fail, as other rewrites attempt failed.
>
> Regarding porting ongoing pull requests, I don't think we need to do that.
> As other port of libzmq (NetMQ and JeroMQ) don't port every pull request.
> If a user want to port a solution to a problem they can just send a pull
> request.
>
> It is very important to maintain the same API as libzmq, as this will what
> make users upgrade to the new version. We can mark the entire API as
> obsolete, make a new one which is using C++11 (and can be called from other
> languages and frameworks) but support the old API none the less.
>
> The main problem I see with this project is that 99.5% of the users of
> zeromq don't care. They will not benefit directly from the upgrade. They
> will benefit if the new version will be more active and will solve new
> problems.
>
> So, to summarize:
> 1. Fork, don't rewrite
> 2. Use C4
> 3. Maintain the same API
> 4. Obsolete old API and create new cooler API (if you really want to)
> 5. Find a way users will benefit from the move
> 6. It will take time, years probably, be patient
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Aram Santogidis <aram.santogidis at cern.ch>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm happy that you guys like the idea and are willing to contribute.
>>
>> I see two separate issues from the remarks made so far.
>>
>> 1) Fork and modernize current codebase or write from scratch.
>> 2) Update libzmq or create a new ZeroMQ project under a different name.
>>
>> The point 1) has to do with the technical aspects of the undertaking.
>> The point 2) is related to ZeroMQ project managemnt/policy matters.
>>
>> Doron, I like your suggestion about forking instead of starting from
>> scratch. What would be your position on point 2)?
>> For me this is the sticking point and it is not obvious which option is
>> best.
>>
>> If changes will be committed back to libzmq then compatibility will be
>> broken for legacy systems from a certain version and beyond. The
>> alternative option of creating a new project potentially leads to
>> (community) resource fragmentation and "branding" issues.
>>
>> Regarding C++11,14... well I think the question at hand is not which
>> exact version of C++ should be adopted but rather if the project will
>> follow the evolution of the language and related technologies, with
>> whatever "phase" difference serves best the community.
>>
>> PS: Does anybody know how big is the usergroup that runs ZeroMQ on
>> Windows XP and such? Not even Microsoft support XP anymore.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Aram
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19.05.2017 15:21, BJovke . wrote:
>>
>>> I have a feeling that C++14 and C++17 are just improvements of C++11.
>>> C++11 is the game changer, 14 and 17 don't bring ground breaking stuff.
>>>
>>> I would be also happy to contribute to C++11 libzmq but I'm not sure how
>>> much stuff I can do.
>>> I'm currently not familiar with inner workings of libzmq enough detailed
>>> to be confident to rewrite it, although I'm reading the docs and code day
>>> by day.
>>> My time to spend is questionable, sometimes I have a lot of time and
>>> sometimes I cannot contribute for days or even weeks.
>>>
>>> There are also many aspects of libzmq which make it hard to adopt the
>>> code, instead requiring complete rewrite:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-05-18 20:29 GMT+02:00 Jens Auer <jens.auer at betaversion.net <mailto:
>>> jens.auer at betaversion.net>>:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would be happy to contribute to such a project, even if many users
>>> will stay with the "old" code. For me, it is a great way to learn
>>> something. I would also be happy to aim for C++14 or even C++17 once
>>> it is officially released. I think structured bindings and the new
>>> if (init; condition) will be very helpful. C++17 also has
>>> std::optional.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jens
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: zeromq-dev [mailto:zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org
>>> <mailto:zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org>] Im Auftrag von Aram
>>> Santogidis
>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Mai 2017 10:57
>>> An: ZeroMQ development list
>>> Betreff: Re: [zeromq-dev] Porting libzmq to C++11
>>>
>>> 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>
>>> > <mailto: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>
>>> > <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> > <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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> > <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 <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>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170519/40c71ce5/attachment.htm>
More information about the zeromq-dev
mailing list