Serge Aleynikov said the following on 7/28/2010 9:30 AM: > However, maybe the problem is not just with names but with the fact that > the 0MQ project tries to be too ambitious in squeezing many concepts > into a single layer of the stack? There is a reason OSI is made up of 7 > layers where each has its own role and API. > There's a reason that OSI isn't as popular as other models ;) > The 0MQ sockets have session, presentation and possibly some of the > application layers intrinsically mixed together. As a result they are > not really "sockets" but endpoints (?), mailboxes (?), nodes (?), and > communication channels combined. While the API is modeled after BSD > sockets, the implementation beefs them up with rich features of upper > layers, and as a result the notion of a socket as communication channel > is somewhat lost together with the ability to identify communicating > entities. > I think, though, that is one of the great aspects of ZeroMQ. It is a message passing library, and incorporating all those things seems necessary; especially if you want to use it for parallelism otherwise you risk losing performance ground.
But it does create a demand for clear variants of the naming conventions for people getting used to it. - Oliver _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
