Router / Dealer is definitely a better name. Looking forward to the change!
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:09 AM, 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 > -- Andrew Cholakian http://www.andrewvc.com
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
