Pieter, Michael, I created a raw RFC, let me know what you think: https://github.com/somdoron/rfc/blob/master/spec_39.txt
Michael, send me your github user I will add you as collaborator (also feel free to add yourself as editor and contributor to the RFC). Regards, Doron On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
