On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't think it's a good idea to have n ZMTP-cloned protocols... > In the long term I would prefer a single less than ideal protocol, > than a thousand "perfect" ones. :) Fork/merge can work with protocols just as with code; the point is you can copy the spec and make changes and publish those, and we can merge the ones that work back. It reduces the need for upfront agreement. Identities... if we take the current semantics, the identity is two things; * an internal "handle" that ROUTER gives to calling apps to resend messages back to their origins * a way to force this handle to a predictable value, typically a uuid The first case allows request-reply chains. There is no reason to ask the client to invent an identity, and good arguments _against_ doing this (it forces clients to use uuids which makes envelopes larger for zero benefit, and creates costs for implementors (uuid library dependencies)). > As such I'm only saying that by making the identity mandatory (at > least in a couple of sockets, or even in the others as seen from the > second example) can only make the protocol more robust. The router's use of identities is an API-level abstraction and is only available as metadata _at all_ to allow applications to force their semantics onto it. It's not a protocol concept in any way. Now we could redefine identity to becoming a protocol concept, as it was in 2.x and earlier, where it defined the persistence of messages held on servers. But that entire concept was taken out, for I think good reasons. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
