On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Brian Granger <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... All good points, and this was where we stopped the proposal to rename socket types last time around. > Any usage of the words client/server/service is horribly confusing in the > 0MQ context. I'm not going to defend the long names if people feel they clumsy and pointless, but 'client' and 'server' are formally defined in http://api.zeromq.org/zmq_socket.html and though I'm often pretty confused about many things, these were always clear. Sure, you can have networks where services connect to clients but then you _know_ you're doing weird stuff. Actually, calling them 'client' and 'server' (for reqrep) IMO helps by telling users 'you really should be binding the server socket and connecting the client socket' (in 95% of cases). Network architectures aren't random. Clients are generally a lot more dynamic than services. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
