Martin, > Given, that ZMQ_IDENTITY is a biggest source of complexity in the > codebase (while at the same time being semantically unsound) I'll have > to remove it from the codebase sooner or later be able to develop the > product further. > > So, what will happen is that we'll have 0MQ/2.x (old API, ZMQ_IDENTITY), > 0MQ/3.x (new API, ZMQ_IDENTITY) and 0MQ/4.x (new API, no ZMQ_IDENTITY).
I think this plan sounds good as long as the new API has the same capabilities as ZMQ_IDENTITY. Cheers, Brian > 0MQ/2.x is maintained by Pieter, 0MQ/4.x (the master) will be maintained > by myself, but it's not clear who's going to do maintenance (backporting > bugfixes etc.) of 0MQ/3.x. > > If there's no maintainer, the version is going to bitrot pretty quickly, > adding additional trouble for binding maintainers while providing no > added value. > > So, my question is: Is there anybody out there who needs ZMQ_IDENTITY so > badly as to volunteer for maintaining 0MQ/3.0? > > If not so, there's no much point in releasing 0MQ/3.0 and we should move > directly to 0MQ/4.0, ie. new API without ZMQ_IDENTITY. > > Martin > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > -- Brian E. Granger Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo [email protected] and [email protected] _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
