I'm submitting the patch with MIT license. On Feb 12, 2010, at 6:05 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> 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 _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
