Hi Pieter, On 05/10/2012 02:36 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Steffen Mueller > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Frankly, I fail to see what's so funky about not wanting to block the sender >> if the receiver is restarted, using the queuing of the library[1].
[snip, explanation of why I was looking for the functionality] >> Either way, I understand the message (and Chuck's, too). I'll roll my own >> solution. > > You seem annoyed that ZeroMQ somehow does not live up to your > expectations. Yet the patterns which ZeroMQ enables are well > documented, and the material that explains how to build on top is > vast, and translated into dozens of programming languages. Oh, I wasn't annoyed at the library. If my tone was sour, I apologize! I think at the same time, I wasn't clear enough on what I meant by "the message" and "roll my own". I meant that the message had been "0MQ is not meant to do that and won't" and the conclusion was that I "need to roll my own on top of 0MQ", not that I intended to "ditch 0MQ and start from TCP". > I've no strong opinion on this, but you might reflect on what it looks > like to others. You find a free library, made by others over years at > their expense. You do not read the available material (or you skim > it). You ask for, and get expert advice, for free. Then you complain > that the tool doesn't fit your personal use case as though the > universe was designed for you? > > Steffen, seriously? Learn it, use it, and if you can improve it, send > us a patch. Don't be condescending. I've written and supported a lot of free software myself. That's not to say anything would entitle me to act like a dick. Again, if that was the impression I created, I'm really sorry. This logic goes both ways. --Steffen _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
