Hi, As a not so old user I can only agree with the fact that the use of XREP and XREQ is not really obvious, for me the lack of real usage documentation is more to blame than the name (I only found some examples lying around but most of them show how to use XREP with REQ and XREQ with REP but not both at the same time ), I understood only recently how they worked and noticed that it was what i was looking for since I started looking at ZeroMQ :) For me the biggest problem is the fact that these two sockets types are so close by name to REP/REQ but have so less in common in practice even if they can interoperate with each other.
That said I am not sure another name would have helped me find their use quicker, now that i know how to use them I understand what the api reference says but when I first looked at their description I was really puzzled xD Maybe a concise example somewhere in the reference could help more than a new name. Julien Ammous On 14 February 2011 12:09, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > There is enormous confusion among new users about how to use the > advanced socket types, and specifically XREP. Here is a (not unusual) > question from IRC today: > > "I need to implement a push-pull with a custom loadbalancing strategy, > what would be the recommend method? adjust the source and create a new > socket type? implement it using PAIR's?" > > It shows just how hard it is for new users to grasp these concepts, > and the XREP/XREQ socket type names are IMO seriously to blame. > > I'd like to make it absolutely unambiguous that to do custom routing, > one uses the socket type we call XREP, and achieve this by renaming > that socket type to ROUTER. Thus one connects a ROUTER socket to other > socket types, and the ROUTER socket does routing of messages according > to an envelope that the application prepares. > > For symmetry I'd also suggest renaming XREQ but don't have a better > name than the one already suggested in Ch3 of the Guide, namely > DEALER. > > My suggestion would be to introduce ROUTER/DEALER as aliases in the > next minor release of 0MQ, and to make these the official names in > 3.0. REQ/REP can stay as they are, they are clear enough. > > Comments, objections? > > -- > Pieter Hintjens > iMatix > _______________________________________________ > 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
