Hi Chris, > The suggestion on extconf.rb looks great. I'd incorporate that. > > IMHO, the namespace is a must, which we both agreed. I'm open to > name it ZMQ rather than Zmq if you prefer that. I don't have a > particular preference one way or the other. > > In terms of API style, I think it should adhere to the basic API in > the C/C++/Python library. Any extra rubyism should be wrapped on > top. There are plenty of messaging abstraction library out there, > such as EventMachine. It's a lot more difficult (or rather > cumbersome) to make the API ruby-ish at the C layer. > > Thoughts? > > Chris P.S.: Surprised that there is not much more opinions on the > ruby binding.
Same here. Anyway, as nobody complains, I'm going to incorporate your patch into ruby binding. The ZMQ namespace is definitely needed. Btw, same change to Python binding was discussed on IRC yesterday. One thing I need is you to state that you are submitting the patch under MIT license. Martin _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
