On 07/02/2012, at 11:57 AM, Chuck Remes wrote: > While watching this thread, I can't help but think that you wish 0mq was a > *much different* library than it is.
I have no "wishes" :) I'm not even using 0MQ at the moment. > I'm hoping that sustrik stays engaged with it at some level to indicate how > much is feasible for his long-term vision (getting 0mq into the kernel) and > how much of it is superfluous to that vision. Putting the locks inside the interface would seem contrary to a kernel implementation: mutex are user space entities. OTOH getting the API into Posix would probably *require* thread-safety. I doubt anyone on the Posix committee would want yet another non-thread-safe API added. If the spec specified thread safety, a kernel implementation would provide that its own way. > I think it will be quite difficult to accommodate your proposed changes while > providing any kind of backward compatibility. I don't understand. The current API is entirely backward compatible. It breaks nothing. It does not threaten the current model at all. It's a pure extension (to the API: the implementation is changed a bit to provide the support). -- john skaller [email protected] _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
