[email protected] said: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Martin Lucina <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Please note that this only applies if you're using UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM > > sockets to implement the "butterfly" design. There are other options where > > the roles of each node are nowhere near as clear-cut as you make them out > > to be. > > What are those other options? Please point me to them, the butterfly > example is the only documented pipeline pattern I've seen.
There was an interesting use Martin Sustrik described at some point on the mailing list (yeah, yeah, even I can't find it) which involved connecting the pipeline back on itself. Of course, I'm sure you'll argue that makes a node both a BF_CLIENT and BF_COLLECTOR... Then there are the "data diode" people using UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM sockets exclusively for their unidirectionality, but I presume their topologies are all top secret :-) > It does not matter what naming scheme there is as long as it is > consistent and predictable. Are you suggesting the current names are > NOT confusing? Or that education and documentation are a replacement > for unsurprising, predictable, consistent names? I am suggesting that once I actually started using 0MQ in anger the names all made sense. I'm sure they could be made better, but at least to me it seems there is a hell of a lot of other stuff (um, you promised a tutorial ages ago?) which would be more useful right now than discussing socket naming. > "In practice it would cause more harm than good" is one of those > statements that needs backing with examples. Right now we have lots > of examples of the current naming scheme causing confusion. Lots? I'm sure there's a happy (and therefore silent) group of users out there. > > You are not taking into account the fact that the 0MQ API was designed > > explicitly to look like POSIX sockets, with the long term view of > > integration into kernel space, which is not the same as desiging an API > > from scratch. > > ? I do not think this part of the 0MQ API has anything to do with POSIX. I was merely reacting to your complaint about the API not being "documented in advance", but I think that's really beside the point here. -mato _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
