On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Martin Sustrik <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There was also some talk about renaming inproc:// to itc:// a while >> ago. Has that been nixed? > > To me, it's seems like adding backward-incompatibility for no obvious > reason. However, if there's widespread enthusiasm among 0mq users for > renaming all the inproc endpoints, I can change the name. Hmm, currently inproc:// is weird, e.g. it doesn't allow connect before bind. So a weird name fits. But if inproc:// actually worked like a proper disconnected transport, it'd make sense to use a name that felt more like a proper transport, and itc:// is nice for that. In terms of pain for applications, it's minor: one search and replace, and it's done. So Martin, I'd suggest not worrying about compatibility here, especially if we break other stuff in 3.0, and consider just whether itc:// is a better name or not. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
