I prefer the term "gateway" as defined on Wikipedia: "In a communications network, a network node equipped for interfacing with another network that uses different protocols.
A gateway may contain devices such as protocol translators, impedance matching devices, rate converters, fault isolators, or signal translators as necessary to provide system interoperability. It also requires the establishment of mutually acceptable administrative procedures between both networks. A protocol translation/mapping gateway interconnects networks with different network protocol technologies by performing the required protocol conversions." A proxy is what most "devices" end up being, correct: "...acts as an intermediary for requests from clients seeking resources from other servers." In reality, both proxy and gateway are "devices." That term is more encompassing. I believe "devices" should be kept with subcategories including "proxy" and "gateway". It would definitely make sense with REST anyway. -- Justin Cook On Saturday, 8 September 2012 at 11:23, Cem Karan wrote: > How about 'adaptor'? The various devices I've seen remind me a bit of > something like that. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > On Sep 8, 2012, at 1:58 AM, Michel Pelletier wrote: > > > I agree with Brian, proxy doesn't feel any better to me. I'm not > > saying device is a good name, but it argues against changing it unless > > the new name is better. > > > > -Michel > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 4:53 AM, MinRK <[email protected] > > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > > > ... but at least I can tell them to email Pieter :) > > > > > > :-) of course. > > > > > > > Yes, I would certainly do that. But deprecating names is not > > > > significantly > > > > less painful than simply changing them, as people still have to update > > > > their > > > > code in the exact same way, just not so abruptly. And they will > > > > rightfully > > > > complain that they are getting nothing for their trouble. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, we've had this discussion a few times... my view is that it's > > > never too late to clear up confusing names. > > > > > > We forget the pain it took to learn 0MQ initially. Explaining it again > > > from scratch, it's clear where we can improve things. > > > > > > "Device" is one of those concepts that always seemed harder to learn > > > than it should have been. "Proxy" isn't an ideal name, but it does > > > seem to cover most use cases, and should be much easier to grasp for > > > new users. > > > > > > So what's the benefit of this change? > > > > > > My hope is that as "proxy" sticks better as a concept, people will > > > actually invest in the built-in proxy, as they never did in devices. > > > > > > -Pieter > > > _______________________________________________ > > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > Attachments: > - smime.p7s > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
