The 2.x to 3.x transition was very painful. The original 3.0 and 3.1 pretty much didn't work with anything else (and let's not forget about the original 4.x branch either). That all got addressed by 3.2 and its successors. It was a bad time for the community because Martin Sustrik and Mikko were unhappy with the commit policies that Pieter devised. They went their own way (Crossroads I/O and then Nanomsg) while many of us worked hard to get 3.2 stable. Things are looking pretty good now.
cr On Aug 26, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Brian Knox <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been a user of zeromq for a few years now. There were in my opinion > some rough spots around the 2.x to 3.x transition. However, I stuck with it, > and from my perspective both the library and the community around the library > has been maturing nicely. > > As Charles said - search for Nathan looking for help on the list and being > ignored, or for him filing bug reports that were ignored, if his statements > give you pause. I'm an empiricist :) > > > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Charles Remes <[email protected]> wrote: > I remember when Nathan Marz was filing bug reports and asking questions on > this list to help get things stabilized. Oh wait, no I don't because as far > as I know he never did any of those things. > > I think 3.3+ works pretty well for a lot of people. > > This is common with open source software so I wouldn't read too much into it. > Nathan preferred to roll his own with Netty. I hope he succeeds. > > cr > > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Andy Pook <[email protected]> wrote: > > > comment from Nathan Marz in a presentation called "Lessons Learned Building > > Storm" > > > > http://www.infoq.com/presentations/storm-lessons > > 42:50 > > > > Q: “What do you think about the ZeroMQ library?” > > > > A: pause… It saved a lot of time initially. Then we ran into a lot of > > problems > > with it. A lot of limitations. So we’re actually getting rid of ZeroMQ in > > Storm … We’re replacing ZeroMQ with Netty. A lot of problems I had with > > ZeroMQ > > were, like, a lot of weird stuff with the community … Lots of regression in > > the code. Nothing above 2.1.7 works … It just a weird, very unstable piece > > of > > software. It could have been a really awesome library. But it just has all > > these weird problems with it. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
