Re: [zeromq-dev] zmq prebuilt for node

[Kyle Kelley]

Excellent!

We may want to make the repo name be node-zeromq. I'll leave that up to you
-- we'll be calling it zeromq on npm (node package manager).

Will we be able to set up AppVeyor, Codecov, and Travis on the repo? It
will likely be Lukas Geiger or myself setting that up/administrating it to
get us started.

GitHub users:

* captainsafia
* lgeiger
* minrk
* rgbkrk





On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Luca Boccassi 
wrote:

> Great stuff!
>
> We'll be happy to add this to the org, unless there are any objections
> tomorrow morning I'll create the repo with the same name. Let me know which
> Github users should be added as admins.
>
> Thank you for the great work!
>
> On Oct 28, 2016 21:28, "Kyle Kelley"  wrote:
> >
> > Resurrecting an old thread to talk about node and something Pieter said:
> >
> > >> I'd probably aim at making this the official zmq package eventually,
> > >> and bring it into the zeromq organization.
> >
> > We now have zmq-prebuilt in good shape, even to the point of being a
> really great project for building from source on platforms (there are
> binaries available for node, you can build from source). Now that it
> generally solves our problems for electron + zmq, we've acquired the zeromq
> name on npm: https://github.com/nteract/zmq-prebuilt/issues/65
> >
> > We generally believe in the zeromq community and ecosystem so we'd be
> happy to move it into the main org.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Pieter Hintjens  wrote:
> >>
> >> Neat, that's what we want.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Kyle Kelley  wrote:
> >> >> How does prebuild differ from node-pre-gyp?
> >> >
> >> > prebuild lets you upload to GitHub for releases whereas node-pre-gyp
> expects
> >> > you to push releases to S3. It appears that the builds from prebuild
> are
> >> > compatible with node-pre-gyp
> >> > (https://github.com/mafintosh/prebuild#building). I'm still learning
> about
> >> > how to work with native node packages, I'm no expert here.
> >> >
> >> >> How do you make an "official" package so that npm knows where to
> find it?
> >> >
> >> > Once you have an npm account and have run `npm login`, from a base
> package
> >> > (where you've defined a package.json), you can run `npm publish` and
> it will
> >> > push it to the registry. That's a little light on details, this
> article is a
> >> > better intro: https://docs.npmjs.com/getting-started/publishing-
> npm-packages
> >> >
> >> > Thus far I've only published dummies with zmq-prebuilt.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Pieter Hintjens 
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I've two questions:
> >> >>
> >> >> - How does prebuild differ from node-pre-gyp?
> >> >>
> >> >> - How do you make an "official" package so that npm knows where to
> find
> >> >> it?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd probably aim at making this the official zmq package eventually,
> >> >> and bring it into the zeromq organization.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Kyle Kelley 
> wrote:
> >> >> > Ok, cool. Thanks for letting me know.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In order to use this with prebuild
> >> >> > (https://github.com/mafintosh/prebuild),
> >> >> > I opted to do a GitHub fork of zmq.node here:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://github.com/nteract/zmq-prebuilt
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I've got initial builds working on Windows and Linux while rather
> amused
> >> >> > that I haven't been able to get OS X building (since that's what
> my dev
> >> >> > box
> >> >> > is)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Pieter Hintjens 
> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The process is to start the project outside the ZeroMQ org and
> then
> >> >> >> bring it in as a kind of sacrificial offering, which gets you
> admin
> >> >> >> karma. This also avoids rashes of new projects that don't go
> anywhere.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Kyle Kelley 
> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Hey all,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I'm interested in creating prebuilt versions of zmq for node
> >> >> >> > available.
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > know that Pieter has started the more long term approach to
> >> >> >> > supporting
> >> >> >> > node.js well with support in zproject:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > https://github.com/zeromq/zproject/pull/484
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > as well as in czmq:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > https://github.com/zeromq/czmq/pull/1319
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > In the meantime, I'd like to plug away on some of the prebuilt
> setup
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > current node bindings (https://github.com/
> JustinTulloss/zeromq.node),
> >> >> >> > as
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > standalone project (called e.g. node-zmq-prebuilt, zmq-prebuilt
> on
> >> >> >> > npm).
> >> >> >> > This would mostly be dotting i's and crossing t's on appveyor +
> >> >> >> > Travis
> >> >> >> > configuration, 

Re: [zeromq-dev] zmq prebuilt for node

[Brian Knox]

Awesome Kyle!

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:48 PM Luca Boccassi 
wrote:

> Great stuff!
>
> We'll be happy to add this to the org, unless there are any objections
> tomorrow morning I'll create the repo with the same name. Let me know which
> Github users should be added as admins.
>
> Thank you for the great work!
>
> On Oct 28, 2016 21:28, "Kyle Kelley"  wrote:
> >
> > Resurrecting an old thread to talk about node and something Pieter said:
> >
> > >> I'd probably aim at making this the official zmq package eventually,
> > >> and bring it into the zeromq organization.
> >
> > We now have zmq-prebuilt in good shape, even to the point of being a
> really great project for building from source on platforms (there are
> binaries available for node, you can build from source). Now that it
> generally solves our problems for electron + zmq, we've acquired the zeromq
> name on npm: https://github.com/nteract/zmq-prebuilt/issues/65
> >
> > We generally believe in the zeromq community and ecosystem so we'd be
> happy to move it into the main org.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Pieter Hintjens  wrote:
> >>
> >> Neat, that's what we want.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Kyle Kelley  wrote:
> >> >> How does prebuild differ from node-pre-gyp?
> >> >
> >> > prebuild lets you upload to GitHub for releases whereas node-pre-gyp
> expects
> >> > you to push releases to S3. It appears that the builds from prebuild
> are
> >> > compatible with node-pre-gyp
> >> > (https://github.com/mafintosh/prebuild#building). I'm still learning
> about
> >> > how to work with native node packages, I'm no expert here.
> >> >
> >> >> How do you make an "official" package so that npm knows where to
> find it?
> >> >
> >> > Once you have an npm account and have run `npm login`, from a base
> package
> >> > (where you've defined a package.json), you can run `npm publish` and
> it will
> >> > push it to the registry. That's a little light on details, this
> article is a
> >> > better intro:
> https://docs.npmjs.com/getting-started/publishing-npm-packages
> >> >
> >> > Thus far I've only published dummies with zmq-prebuilt.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Pieter Hintjens 
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I've two questions:
> >> >>
> >> >> - How does prebuild differ from node-pre-gyp?
> >> >>
> >> >> - How do you make an "official" package so that npm knows where to
> find
> >> >> it?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd probably aim at making this the official zmq package eventually,
> >> >> and bring it into the zeromq organization.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Kyle Kelley 
> wrote:
> >> >> > Ok, cool. Thanks for letting me know.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In order to use this with prebuild
> >> >> > (https://github.com/mafintosh/prebuild),
> >> >> > I opted to do a GitHub fork of zmq.node here:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://github.com/nteract/zmq-prebuilt
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I've got initial builds working on Windows and Linux while rather
> amused
> >> >> > that I haven't been able to get OS X building (since that's what
> my dev
> >> >> > box
> >> >> > is)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Pieter Hintjens 
> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The process is to start the project outside the ZeroMQ org and
> then
> >> >> >> bring it in as a kind of sacrificial offering, which gets you
> admin
> >> >> >> karma. This also avoids rashes of new projects that don't go
> anywhere.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Kyle Kelley 
> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Hey all,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I'm interested in creating prebuilt versions of zmq for node
> >> >> >> > available.
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > know that Pieter has started the more long term approach to
> >> >> >> > supporting
> >> >> >> > node.js well with support in zproject:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > https://github.com/zeromq/zproject/pull/484
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > as well as in czmq:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > https://github.com/zeromq/czmq/pull/1319
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > In the meantime, I'd like to plug away on some of the prebuilt
> setup
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > current node bindings (
> https://github.com/JustinTulloss/zeromq.node),
> >> >> >> > as
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > standalone project (called e.g. node-zmq-prebuilt, zmq-prebuilt
> on
> >> >> >> > npm).
> >> >> >> > This would mostly be dotting i's and crossing t's on appveyor +
> >> >> >> > Travis
> >> >> >> > configuration, as well as finishing off what I worked on in
> >> >> >> > https://github.com/JustinTulloss/zeromq.node/pull/486
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Would this be a good project to startup within zeromq, or
> should I
> >> >> >> > build
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> > out on a different org for now?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> > Kyle Kelley (@rgbkrk; 

Re: [zeromq-dev] zmq prebuilt for node

[Luca Boccassi]

Great stuff!

We'll be happy to add this to the org, unless there are any objections
tomorrow morning I'll create the repo with the same name. Let me know which
Github users should be added as admins.

Thank you for the great work!

On Oct 28, 2016 21:28, "Kyle Kelley"  wrote:
>
> Resurrecting an old thread to talk about node and something Pieter said:
>
> >> I'd probably aim at making this the official zmq package eventually,
> >> and bring it into the zeromq organization.
>
> We now have zmq-prebuilt in good shape, even to the point of being a
really great project for building from source on platforms (there are
binaries available for node, you can build from source). Now that it
generally solves our problems for electron + zmq, we've acquired the zeromq
name on npm: https://github.com/nteract/zmq-prebuilt/issues/65
>
> We generally believe in the zeromq community and ecosystem so we'd be
happy to move it into the main org.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Pieter Hintjens  wrote:
>>
>> Neat, that's what we want.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Kyle Kelley  wrote:
>> >> How does prebuild differ from node-pre-gyp?
>> >
>> > prebuild lets you upload to GitHub for releases whereas node-pre-gyp
expects
>> > you to push releases to S3. It appears that the builds from prebuild
are
>> > compatible with node-pre-gyp
>> > (https://github.com/mafintosh/prebuild#building). I'm still learning
about
>> > how to work with native node packages, I'm no expert here.
>> >
>> >> How do you make an "official" package so that npm knows where to find
it?
>> >
>> > Once you have an npm account and have run `npm login`, from a base
package
>> > (where you've defined a package.json), you can run `npm publish` and
it will
>> > push it to the registry. That's a little light on details, this
article is a
>> > better intro:
https://docs.npmjs.com/getting-started/publishing-npm-packages
>> >
>> > Thus far I've only published dummies with zmq-prebuilt.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Pieter Hintjens  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've two questions:
>> >>
>> >> - How does prebuild differ from node-pre-gyp?
>> >>
>> >> - How do you make an "official" package so that npm knows where to
find
>> >> it?
>> >>
>> >> I'd probably aim at making this the official zmq package eventually,
>> >> and bring it into the zeromq organization.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Kyle Kelley  wrote:
>> >> > Ok, cool. Thanks for letting me know.
>> >> >
>> >> > In order to use this with prebuild
>> >> > (https://github.com/mafintosh/prebuild),
>> >> > I opted to do a GitHub fork of zmq.node here:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://github.com/nteract/zmq-prebuilt
>> >> >
>> >> > I've got initial builds working on Windows and Linux while rather
amused
>> >> > that I haven't been able to get OS X building (since that's what my
dev
>> >> > box
>> >> > is)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Pieter Hintjens 
wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The process is to start the project outside the ZeroMQ org and then
>> >> >> bring it in as a kind of sacrificial offering, which gets you admin
>> >> >> karma. This also avoids rashes of new projects that don't go
anywhere.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Kyle Kelley 
wrote:
>> >> >> > Hey all,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm interested in creating prebuilt versions of zmq for node
>> >> >> > available.
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > know that Pieter has started the more long term approach to
>> >> >> > supporting
>> >> >> > node.js well with support in zproject:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://github.com/zeromq/zproject/pull/484
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > as well as in czmq:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://github.com/zeromq/czmq/pull/1319
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In the meantime, I'd like to plug away on some of the prebuilt
setup
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > current node bindings (
https://github.com/JustinTulloss/zeromq.node),
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > standalone project (called e.g. node-zmq-prebuilt, zmq-prebuilt
on
>> >> >> > npm).
>> >> >> > This would mostly be dotting i's and crossing t's on appveyor +
>> >> >> > Travis
>> >> >> > configuration, as well as finishing off what I worked on in
>> >> >> > https://github.com/JustinTulloss/zeromq.node/pull/486
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Would this be a good project to startup within zeromq, or should
I
>> >> >> > build
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > out on a different org for now?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > Kyle Kelley (@rgbkrk; lambdaops.com)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ___
>> >> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> >> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ___
>> >> >> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
>> >> >> 

Re: [zeromq-dev] zmq prebuilt for node

[Kyle Kelley]

Resurrecting an old thread to talk about node and something Pieter said:

>> I'd probably aim at making this the official zmq package eventually,
>> and bring it into the zeromq organization.

We now have zmq-prebuilt in good shape, even to the point of being a really
great project for building from source on platforms (there are binaries
available for node, you can build from source). Now that it generally
solves our problems for electron + zmq, we've acquired the zeromq name on
npm: https://github.com/nteract/zmq-prebuilt/issues/65

We generally believe in the zeromq community and ecosystem so we'd be happy
to move it into the main org.


On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Pieter Hintjens  wrote:

> Neat, that's what we want.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Kyle Kelley  wrote:
> >> How does prebuild differ from node-pre-gyp?
> >
> > prebuild lets you upload to GitHub for releases whereas node-pre-gyp
> expects
> > you to push releases to S3. It appears that the builds from prebuild are
> > compatible with node-pre-gyp
> > (https://github.com/mafintosh/prebuild#building). I'm still learning
> about
> > how to work with native node packages, I'm no expert here.
> >
> >> How do you make an "official" package so that npm knows where to find
> it?
> >
> > Once you have an npm account and have run `npm login`, from a base
> package
> > (where you've defined a package.json), you can run `npm publish` and it
> will
> > push it to the registry. That's a little light on details, this article
> is a
> > better intro: https://docs.npmjs.com/getting-started/publishing-
> npm-packages
> >
> > Thus far I've only published dummies with zmq-prebuilt.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Pieter Hintjens  wrote:
> >>
> >> I've two questions:
> >>
> >> - How does prebuild differ from node-pre-gyp?
> >>
> >> - How do you make an "official" package so that npm knows where to find
> >> it?
> >>
> >> I'd probably aim at making this the official zmq package eventually,
> >> and bring it into the zeromq organization.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Kyle Kelley  wrote:
> >> > Ok, cool. Thanks for letting me know.
> >> >
> >> > In order to use this with prebuild
> >> > (https://github.com/mafintosh/prebuild),
> >> > I opted to do a GitHub fork of zmq.node here:
> >> >
> >> > https://github.com/nteract/zmq-prebuilt
> >> >
> >> > I've got initial builds working on Windows and Linux while rather
> amused
> >> > that I haven't been able to get OS X building (since that's what my
> dev
> >> > box
> >> > is)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Pieter Hintjens 
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The process is to start the project outside the ZeroMQ org and then
> >> >> bring it in as a kind of sacrificial offering, which gets you admin
> >> >> karma. This also avoids rashes of new projects that don't go
> anywhere.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Kyle Kelley 
> wrote:
> >> >> > Hey all,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm interested in creating prebuilt versions of zmq for node
> >> >> > available.
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > know that Pieter has started the more long term approach to
> >> >> > supporting
> >> >> > node.js well with support in zproject:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://github.com/zeromq/zproject/pull/484
> >> >> >
> >> >> > as well as in czmq:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://github.com/zeromq/czmq/pull/1319
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In the meantime, I'd like to plug away on some of the prebuilt
> setup
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > current node bindings (https://github.com/
> JustinTulloss/zeromq.node),
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > standalone project (called e.g. node-zmq-prebuilt, zmq-prebuilt on
> >> >> > npm).
> >> >> > This would mostly be dotting i's and crossing t's on appveyor +
> >> >> > Travis
> >> >> > configuration, as well as finishing off what I worked on in
> >> >> > https://github.com/JustinTulloss/zeromq.node/pull/486
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Would this be a good project to startup within zeromq, or should I
> >> >> > build
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > out on a different org for now?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Kyle Kelley (@rgbkrk; lambdaops.com)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ___
> >> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> >> >> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> >> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >> >> >
> >> >> ___
> >> >> zeromq-dev mailing list
> >> >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> >> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Kyle Kelley (@rgbkrk; lambdaops.com)
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> >> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> >> >
> >> ___
> >> zeromq-dev 

Re: [zeromq-dev] CZMQ old v2 API proposal: deprecated -> retired

[Wes Young]

fwiw; what’s currently in czmq master *appears* to work OK with zmq-4.1-, i 
wanna say i have even tested it against zmq-4.2 (libzmq-master) w/o much issue, 
both not *extensively*, but enough to have some confidence in it.

so … +1 for pushing it further faster [if that means anything anyway].

> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Luca Boccassi  wrote:
> 
> Comments, objections?

--
wes
wesyoung.me



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

[zeromq-dev] CZMQ old v2 API proposal: deprecated -> retired

[Luca Boccassi]

Hello all,

Since we are hopefully close to release libzmq 4.2, I checked what's the
API/ABI status in CZMQ master vs 3.0.2. There are a _lot_ of ABI
breakages, and a couple of API too.

Given it's been now 2 years and 2 weeks since 3.0.0 was released and the
v2 APIs were declared DEPRECATED
( https://github.com/zeromq/czmq#toc3-8224 ), I hereby propose to
declare them RETIRED as per C4.1 process and remove them from the
repository.

I thought it would have been nice to do a bugfix release first, but
API/ABI is already broken and it would be too much pain to revert all
those changes and then put them back on.

This way we bump to major version 4.0.0 and break ABI all in one fell
swoop, and minimise disruption.

Comments, objections?

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

Re: [zeromq-dev] ZeroMQ 4.2 release, planning

[Luca Boccassi]

I have sent a solution for the alignment problem that solves the sigbus
problem without breaking ABI compat (plus follow-up for VC++ - sorry
Windows guys https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/2179 ).

I tested the alignment and sigbus problem on x86_64 by enabling
alignment check with:

__asm__("pushf\norl $0x4,(%rsp)\npopf");

All was fine.

I ran tests built from the zeromq4-1 repository against a shared lib
from the head of libzmq repo, and they all run fine minus the
ZMQ_REQ_CORRELATE one but that option was borken anyway.

This allows us to do a release now, and then when we are ready we can do
the ABI breakage, without blocking 4.2. Which is nice since it means it
might make it for Debian 9!

So, Doron et al, shall we do the bump this weekend?

On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 17:12 -0500, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> I will have some time most likely the week of Nov6 (off for a week of C++
> Committee 'fun') to test different message size alternatives. I'll follow
> up with my results here for consideration the next time we are inclined to
> break the ABI compatibility :)
> 
> On Sunday, October 16, 2016, Brian Knox  wrote:
> 
> > A new stable version would definitely help me in my quest to get ZeroMQ
> > support enabled by default in rsyslog in distros.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 2:40 PM Doron Somech  wrote:
> >
> >> I say lets bump.
> >>
> >> On Oct 15, 2016 20:32, "Luca Boccassi"  wrote:
> >>
> >>> As Thomas said, false sharing would be a real issue with 96.
> >>>
> >>> So given a release is long due, at this point I'd say to drop this for
> >>> the moment.
> >>>
> >>> What do we do for the change to union for zmq_msg_t? Bump ABI version or
> >>> not?
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 09:53 +0300, Doron Somech wrote:
> >>> > No new socket type, I worked at the time on binary message type, might
> >>> > complete it sometime, but it is not urgent.
> >>> >
> >>> > If there is a lot of performance penalty we can give it up, I will
> >>> > find another solution for the Radio-Dish.
> >>> >
> >>> > What about 96 bytes? same penalty?
> >>> >
> >>> > Regarding the binding, I'm not sure.
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Luca Boccassi 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 09:41 +0300, Doron Somech wrote:
> >>> > >> Sorry for the late response, increasing the msg_t structure will be
> >>> > >> great, however this will require changing a lot of binding.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I think I remember we need it for the new socket types, is that
> >>> correct?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > There is a large performance penalty (intuitively due to not fitting
> >>> > > into a single cache line anymore, but haven't ran perf/cachegrind),
> >>> and
> >>> > > the throughput with vsm type messages goes down by 4% (min) and 20%
> >>> > > (max) for TCP, and 36% (min) 38 (max) for inproc, which is quite a
> >>> lot,
> >>> > > so we need to be sure it's worth it.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Regarding the bindings, after a quick search on the Github org, I
> >>> could
> >>> > > only see:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/lzmq/blob/master/src/lua/lzmq/
> >>> ffi/api.lua#L144
> >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/clrzmq4/blob/master/lib/zmq.cs#L28
> >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/pyczmq/blob/master/pyczmq/zmq.py#L177
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Other bindings just import zmq.h. Did I miss any?
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> Sorry for disappearing, baby and full time job is a lot :-),
> >>> hopefully
> >>> > >> I'm back...
> >>> > >
> >>> > > No worries, perfectly understandable :-)
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Luca Boccassi <
> >>> luca.bocca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >> > Sorry, I meant if we go with (1), not (2), we might bump the size
> >>> as
> >>> > >> > well, since we are already doing another ABI-breaking change.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > I agree on the solution as well.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 17:12 +0200, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> >>> > >> >> I'm confused between the (1) and (2) choices, and can't see where
> >>> > >> >> bumping the message size fits.
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >> Nonetheless, I think bumping the size, fixing the alignment
> >>> issues,
> >>> > >> >> and bumping the ABI version is the best solution here.
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Luca Boccassi <
> >>> luca.bocca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >> >> > I've given some more thoughts and testing to the alignment
> >>> issue. I can
> >>> > >> >> > reproduce the problem by enabling alignment checks on x86 too.
> >>> > >> >> >
> >>> > >> >> > But most importantly, I think we cannot get away from bumping
> >>> the ABI
> >>> > >> >> > with this fix, however we rearrange it, simply because
> >>> applications need
> >>> > >> >> > to be rebuilt against the new header to be fixed. A simple
> >>> rebuild of
> >>> > >> >> > the libzmq.so is not enough. And the way to do this is to bump
> >>> the ABI
>