Hello Cornelius,
Thanks and that worked well yesterday. but now i am facing a very basic
problem. Following is my code for receiver, sender and forwarder device which
was working yesterday , but today i am not able to send and receive and message:
Forwarder Device:
context =
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:34 AM, martin burtscher b...@fhv.at wrote:
i've already ported ZMQ (latest ported version: 2.0.10) to VxWorks.
At least for VxWorks 6.1 (which should also work for newer versions, but not
for
older). I just used the ZMQ source code tried to compile and fixed the
Brandon,
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Brandon Rampersad
brandon.add...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any plans to make zeromq used with libuv?
No plans but if you can explain what problems this would solve, you
might interest others in working with you on it.
-Pieter
Bolang,
For web apps with a lot of streaming data (twitter for example), browsers
tend to ping servers and wait (long poll) for updates.
http://reversehttp.net/specs.html makes HTTP itself ReSTful and thus seems
like a suitable protocol for 0MQ push/pull over the web as http:// and
https://
Jordan
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Brandon Rampersad
brandon.add...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any plans to make zeromq used with libuv?
Can you not just use both along the side in one application? There is
no need to mix the two from inside one another, you can just do it
from your application
Stephen,
I've finished C4, which aims to turn our ZeroMQ collaboration process
into something reusable by others.
Would you take a look and critique it? http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:16
The goal is to replace our current contribution page with a reference
to this, and eventually work with other
Hi Pieter,
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Pieter Hintjens p...@imatix.com wrote:
Would you take a look and critique it? http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:16
At least this item:
The project SHALL NOT use topic branches.
Needs more explanation.
--
Paul
On 19/03/2012, at 7:24 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
I've finished C4, which aims to turn our ZeroMQ collaboration process
into something reusable by others.
Would you take a look and critique it? http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:16
Replace project SHALL use LGPL with specified way to specify
n Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Paul Colomiets p...@colomiets.name wrote:
The project SHALL NOT use topic branches.
Needs more explanation.
1. All experimentation happens outside the main repository until it's
ready for public use and then
2. It's pushed as rapidly as possible to master so
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:25 PM, john skaller
skal...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Replace project SHALL use LGPL with specified way to specify licence,
E.G.
Project SHALL specify software licence on Homepage and
SHALL provide LICENCE file in top level of repository.
Perhaps. There is a
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 7:12 PM, john skaller
skal...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
The purpose of the above is to improve quality control.
The maintainer no longer simply automatically merges
in a patch. For a bugfix, the ticket must exist first,
If you read C4 it says that for all changes, a
On 19/03/2012, at 11:15 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
It's not about restriction but simply about the ability to remix a
fork (e.g. it's only thanks to the LGPL that a fork like xs is not
really toxic but rather an interesting experiment).
I do not understand this. Perhaps you can explain.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:12 AM, john skaller
skal...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Anyhow, my point is that legal and technical environments change
and a constitution which does not make provision for that is
a recipe for suicide.
If you want to change the 0MQ licensing policy, it's easy,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:12 PM, john skaller skal...@users.sourceforge.net
wrote:
On 19/03/2012, at 11:15 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
It's not about restriction but simply about the ability to remix a
fork (e.g. it's only thanks to the LGPL that a fork like xs is not
really toxic but
On 19/03/2012, at 12:30 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 7:12 PM, john skaller
skal...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
The purpose of the above is to improve quality control.
The maintainer no longer simply automatically merges
in a patch. For a bugfix, the ticket must
15 matches
Mail list logo
