On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Ian Barber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yeah, cfengine absolutely. Point being, there are good tools, and there >> isn't necessarily going to be as much value in building a new one, where >> there is a bigger gap for the rest of it. In terms of project work, I would >> see using a 0MQ transport as part of any of those project as more something >> to do with those projects than an explicit component of whaleshark. > > There are several aspects here. The most difficult for me is to > accurately understand the problem before diving into solutions, > existing or new. The second is to get 0MQ as the transport, > systematically, for reasons of interoperability. > > So a lot of the initial work will be to make simple disposable designs > that can be strawmen for real designs. > > -Pieter
Reading your doc, I'm was saying myself erlang would be appropriate for the node. You already have the crash recovery pattern + it's multiplatform. But i'm curious what could be other solutions. - benoît _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
