it is interesting to see such a multi-level discussion!
(and it is rewarding to see how much of this is driven by how successful 0mq
is!)
let me offer some observations:
1) the rasion d'etre, or central meme, of 0mq is scalability to internet-sized
problems.
no one else offers this -- you must not lose it. this is why crap like
routability
and so forth is inherently a different layer -- there is too much infrastructure
and assumptions built into these things.
2) normally, i am utterly unimpressed by half-arsed solutions. being able to
"route back" via XREP/XREQ has always struck me as lazy. to me, you either do it
right (which can never involve XREQ/XREP alone, there has to be much more
infrastructure to cope with different errors), or you don't (in which case your
solution is not always correct so why do you care?).
3) having said 2), there nevertheless is a place for restricted domains.
if someone were to offer, say, reliable routing within a domain
where the networking has diameter of 2 hops (like a single cluster
of machines), then that would be attractive to a large number of people.
but that should be an explicit choice, just like choosing your
messaging pattern is a choice. and by choosing the domain cleverly,
you can probably offer this functionality simply.
and with due respect to pieter, just because users do something,
that doesn't make it right or even sensible. it simply points out a need.
we all want to make users happy, but not at the cost of teh project's soul.
(overstatement for sure, but you know what i mean.)
andrew
------------------
Andrew Hume (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845
[email protected] (Work) +1 973-236-2014
AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
