On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:43 AM, john skaller <skal...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> In terms of nomenclature, should bindings follow the czmq convention of >> using Frame to refer to a message part, or Message, following libzmq? Yes, I'd definitely recommend using the czmq terminology. All words have multiple meanings, but as long as we are consistent within our universe, it'll be OK. "Frame" is the natural term for one message part since it does actually represent one 0MQ wire level frame. "Message" is the right term for a collection of 1 or more frames. These two map cleanly to the semantics we expect to get. 0MQ's API doc is confusing because it uses "message" for both concepts. This terminology has evolved over a long time from use in the Guide and there have been no issues raised with it, so I'd encourage its adoption. Anything more complex is going to be more, not less, confusing. I'd also recommend updating http://www.zeromq.org/topics:binding-abstractions to suit. Cheers Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
