On 2012-02-24, at 5:12 PM, john skaller wrote: > So I am guessing various LGPL licences (without linking exemption).
haven't gotten to the licensing issues yet (if any between gnutls and libzmq). Whatever I publish is usually BSD so you can do whatever your want with it. > Depends on? libnettle? lbgmp? another reason i went with 2.8.6 was to avoid libnettle (in exchange for getting it to compile on debian squeeze first). nettle didn't make an appearance till gnutls 2.10 or 3? I do have libgmp installed, didn't check to see if it was libgmp was a dep or not (http://packages.debian.org/source/squeeze/gnutls26) down the road, once we figure this out, 3.x starts to support DTLS (tls+udp, etc..) which (i think) will make the async io stuff even faster and more flexible. i have a design question (purely out of curiosity) though: what was the reasoning for doing libzmq in C++ rather than C?. Esp when we're wrapping a C api around it anyway? I understand OO programming can be easier sometimes, etc.. just curious if there was a specific design decision that went into it or that (that' i'm just missing) it's just the way it evolved.. the lib is def very well documented and written, it's just a little funny (also with all the .hpp's mixed with the .cpp's instead of using things like an include/ directory, etc… I'm guessing an artifact of visual studio?). again, just curious. -- Wes claimid.com/wesyoung
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
