> nanomsg wouldn't be an easy drop in replacement to our existing messaging
> infrastructure. We need to understand how our code would be structured if we
> decide to use nanomsg. I am considering the Go implementation of nanomsg
> (protocol) called mangos[3] for inter-GlusterD communication in
It's not packaged in Fedora. There have been two attempts, in 2013 and
2014; https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1012392 and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 respectively.
It is packaged in Debian.
On 08/31/2015 11:41 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
>> nanomsg wouldn't be an
> It's not packaged in Fedora. There have been two attempts, in 2013 and
> 2014; https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1012392 and
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 respectively.
>From looking at those, it didn't look like there were any truly
intractable issues - e.g.
All,
I have been exploring different ways of addressing GlusterFS messaging layer
recently. My motivations for this are to find a library/framework that provides
messaging capabilities over the network with the following characteristics,
- Better expressibility - provide useful abstractions
