On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Ian Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > From https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/422 > > > > LGTM. I think the proxy name fits the concept better, particularly > with the capture socket option (which is very akin to the monitored > device in pyzmq iirc). It kind of frees up the language as well - if > someone does want to build a little service that does some work they > can call it a device without it being confused with the zmq_device > function to - though as you say that hasn't happened that much! > I agree that proxy is a better name, though I am not certain the cost of renaming is outweighed by the better name. I have a practical question as maintainer of pyzmq. PyZMQ has a notion of 'devices', e.g. from zmq.devices import monitored_queue for the device derivative Ian alluded to, or from zmq.devices import ThreadDevice for a class that runs zmq_device in a GIL-less background thread Does this suggest that I should now be moving these to zmq.proxies, and zmq.proxies.ThreadProxy? I know I will get loads of complaints from users for changing APIs simply because the name is better, but at least I can tell them to email Pieter :) One comment on the capture socket: When I wrote the monitored queue which does essentially the same thing, I needed direction information (whether the message came from the frontend or the backend), rather than just publishing everything as-is. This allows a design where one SUB socket can monitor messages from a collection of proxies, and know where messages are coming from (frontend/backend as well as which proxy). -MinRK > > Ian > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
