On 10/27/2011 03:19 PM, AJ Lewis wrote: >> So, please, if you are using labels and you mind about reverting back >> to 2.1-style protocol, shout now! > > Is there a strong reason to not move forward with the new label > protocol in 3.0? It seems like it's had reasonable support on the list > (the main complaint has been consistency AFAICS). Would it be a bunch > of work to make things consistent using the new label model? > > I've not dug into the 3.0 model extensively, but it makes sense to me to > split the envelopes out of the data parts of the message and put them > into the protocol itself.
The current codebase is somewhere on the halfway between old system based on multi-part messages alone and a system using labels consistently. AFAIU this is causing problems with usability of 3.0, issues like "example X in guild is written for version 2.1 but it doesn't work with 3.0" etc. That's why I proposed reverting to old behaviour. If people are happy with existing 3.0 behaviour, all it means is less work for me :) Martin _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
