It's sounding like nanomsg is the direction to go. Any other thoughts? On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Minjie Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> My colleagues and I are working on adding more support for data > transmission. For example, send/recv operators in dataflow graph to support > some fancier parallelism. I feel like this could be part of mxnet in the > future (need more discussions for sure). Currently, we are using zeromq > since we already depend on it. Does that mean we should actually consider > using other libraries? > > For 3), it should not be hard since we are only transmitting arrays. We > don't need to support rich types and complex data structures like normal > RPC. > > - Minjie > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Will, Martin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Re 3.) Nanomsg is licensed under BSD. [http://nanomsg.org/]. It’s > written > > by one of the original authors of zeromq, and can be considered as an > > evolution it. The API mostly maps 1-to-1. > > > > - Martin > > > > > > On 2/20/17, 11:54 PM, "Henri Yandell" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > How tied is MXNet to ZeroMQ? > > > > My notes are that ps-lite depends on it. > > > > Options I can see here are: > > > > 1) Discuss on general@incubator and determine if the exception is > > acceptable. I suspect this is unlikely given that Apache Toree had a > > problem with jeromq which led to jeromq very kindly relicensing to > MPL > > ( > > https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/issues/326). > > 2) Request libzmq relicense to MPL. This is something the project has > > begun, but seems to be in frozen currently (unless I'm missing recent > > activity). > > 3) Rewrite MXNet to not rely on zeromq. How difficult would that be? > > 4) Switching MXNet to use something other than ps-lite? (Not sure if > > that's > > easier than #3). > > > > Any thoughts on #3 + #4? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Hen > > > > > > > > > -- > Minjie Wang > *New York University | Computer Science* > 715 Broadway, New York, NY, 10009 >
