Nice. The RFCs are also in zeromq/rfc on GitHub.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Doron Somech <[email protected]> wrote: > I will create a page at http://rfc.zeromq.org/ and will cover the framing, > but I will only get it on the weekend... > > > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Michael Haberler <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Doron, >> >> >> Am 24.06.2014 um 09:36 schrieb Doron Somech <[email protected]>: >> >> > what do you mean "ZMTP/multiple destination URI's dance"? >> >> well, I see the choices being either a pretty complete ZMTP implementation >> on the JS side of things - then you can multiplex, connect several socket >> destinations in JS and so forth; or one uses URI options, and the proxy's >> functionality, and only multipart framing is done over the ws connection; I >> prefer the latter because the first option looks like significant effort for >> no clear upside >> >> > >> > He can create a page under http://rfc.zeromq.org/, anyway some of my >> > thoughts: >> > * Regarding using URI, i think we should use that for resource sharing >> > (binding multiple sockets on same port with different service name), we can >> > also use that for socket type (maybe as fragment) I'm not sure we should >> > support identifies (I'm not sure what the gain for that). >> >> It does make sense at times to have clients legibly identified, eg in >> logs; it's not much extra cost, just a URI k/v pair >> >> > * We can transfer the protocol version on the "Sec-WebSocket-Protocol" >> > and later support server that can support multiple client versions. >> >> that is a clever idea, I like it! >> >> > * should we only support strings (UTF8)? Because the framing for UTF8 >> > and binary is different >> >> I dont see any value in that atm, but I might be missing something; again >> I had that as a k/v option in the URI >> >> > * I don't think we should start with multiplexing, I think it very >> > complicated to do it right. >> >> nope, KISS wins the day >> >> > Other than that, lets start :-). >> >> how do we start on the multipart framing writeup? You sketch it, or I >> disassemble your code ;-? >> >> One issue we need to think through is the handling of identities - eg if >> due to zmq proxies several identities are assembled, delimited with a >> zero-length frame; the options are either to pass those through via WS >> as-is, or maybe handle them at proxy proper if that is to be the last zeromq >> endpoint having a visible identity >> >> >> cheers - Michael >> >> >> > >> > Doron >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Michael Haberler <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > Hi Doron, >> > >> > >> > Am 23.06.2014 um 14:30 schrieb Doron Somech <[email protected]>: >> > >> > > Hi Michael, >> > > >> > > You are right, every message start with ascii code of 1 or 0 to >> > > indicate if more to come, regarding the RFC, I think it will be great. >> > > >> > > We should think about more stuff like port sharing (multiple sockets >> > > on same port each with different URI) and sub protocols validation (for >> > > PubSub, Request Reply). >> > >> > Assuming we write up a recommendation/method to map zeromq onto >> > websockets as an RFC-style document, I see several aspects to the task: >> > >> > - define a mapping how multiframe messages are en/decoded, assuming the >> > current ws connection handles a single connection (say a dealer/router or >> > xsub/xpub pair); that would essentially cover non-mutilation of the frame >> > structure, but not aspects like multiple destinations handled in one socket >> > - do the whole ZMTP/multiple destination URI's dance on the JS side. >> > - multiplexing several sockets over a single ws connection >> > - define if the ws connect URI (which can be viewed as pre-connect, out >> > of band information) is used to carry extra setup, like carry socket type, >> > identity, make the proxy connect to several target URI's etc >> > >> > The first step IMO is essential; curious - does your scheme proxy >> > zero-length frames properly? I'm not fully up to speed on ws specs if >> > zero-length frames are passed properly. >> > In my application scenario I dont have any upside for (2) and (3), and >> > I'm a bit concerned about feature creep >> > I think (4) would cover much of (2) >> > (2) and (3) would probably require more complex framing than just (1) >> > and (4), which would be my preferred goal >> > >> > I think the decision to take is 'full ZMTP JS-side' and more complex >> > framing, versus one ws connection mapped onto a socket (which may connect >> > to >> > several URI's at the proxy), and simpler framing. I fear the framing >> > methods >> > would be incompatible if one started with the second goal and tried to >> > achieve to the first thereafter, for what I see limited upside. >> > >> > What I propose is we formulate the framing procedure for the >> > single-socket connection case for a start, and go from there. >> > >> > - Michael >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > >> > > Doron >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Michael Haberler <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > Hi Doron, >> > > >> > > Am 23.06.2014 um 10:25 schrieb Doron Somech <[email protected]>: >> > > >> > > > Hi All, >> > > > >> > > > I'd like to introduce two new projects I'm working on: >> > > > >> > > > https://github.com/somdoron/JSMQ - ZeroMQ/NetMQ javascript client >> > > > over WebSockets >> > > > https://github.com/somdoron/NetMQ.WebSockets - WebSockets extension >> > > > to NetMQ, uses stream socket type and provide a new socket object that >> > > > has >> > > > very similar interface to NetMQ socket object. >> > > > >> > > > Both available on nuget (include prerelease) and at a beta stage. >> > > > >> > > > You can read more about the projects at my blog: >> > > > http://somdoron.com/2014/06/introducing-netmq-websockets-jsmq/ >> > > >> > > very interesting since I'm on a related venture - relaying zmq >> > > router/dealer and xsub/xpub to JS via libwebsockets (C++) >> > > >> > > I'm a complete JS retard, but if I understand your JSMQ layer right it >> > > essential wraps multipart frames (with leading 0/1 per frame == MORE >> > > flag) >> > > over ws frames so they can be assembled/sent from normal zmq multipart >> > > frames in the proxy, and message structure retained? >> > > >> > > if this is so I'll adopt your scheme for the zmq/ws proxy I'm working >> > > on, because preservation of multiframe messages on the ws side is an open >> > > issue for me, and with your approach it would be more 'end-to-end', the >> > > zmq/ws proxy being a zeromq proxy proper in terms of socket identity >> > > >> > > maybe this kind of ws framing warrants a bit of an RFC? happy to >> > > co-author - could help interoperability downstream >> > > >> > > - Michael >> > > >> > > ps: where I am : http://goo.gl/4TfWBh >> > > >> > > nonobvious aspects are: >> > > - a key feature is automatic JSON <-> protobuf conversion since we use >> > > protobuf-over-zmq internally, see: http://goo.gl/9OEcHY and >> > > http://goo.gl/sY6sEI respectively >> > > - I use URI arguments to drive proxy behavior: http://goo.gl/FVddoJ - >> > > rather flexible to tack on this or that option, uses liburiparser >> > > a client-side URI to connect to the proxy could look like so: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Regards, >> > > > >> > > > Doron >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > 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 >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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
