On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote: > 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 :)
I like the concept of differentiating the envelope/labels from the message body. I would like to keep labels. Using an empty packet as a delimiter between envelope and body was a good first try, but labels are superior. IMHO. cr _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
