Re: [RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-24 Thread Lars T. Kyllingstad
On Monday, 23 December 2013 at 23:28:19 UTC, Rikki Guy wrote: Brilliant! I've found myself in need of this exactly, and had just started on my own - you have saved me a lot of work! Glad to be of assistance. :) If you run into any problems with the library, please report them here:

Re: [RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-23 Thread Rikki Guy
Brilliant! I've found myself in need of this exactly, and had just started on my own - you have saved me a lot of work! On Sunday, 22 December 2013 at 00:18:51 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: I've been working on a D wrapper for the ∅MQ (aka. ZMQ/ZeroMQ) messaging library, and I think it's

Re: [RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-22 Thread Lars T. Kyllingstad
On Sunday, 22 December 2013 at 01:56:10 UTC, Kelet wrote: On Sunday, 22 December 2013 at 00:18:51 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: I've tried to stay as close as possible to the design of the C library, while adding a distinct D feel. Details are in the documentation. After reviewing the API

Re: [RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-22 Thread Lars T. Kyllingstad
On Sunday, 22 December 2013 at 01:49:59 UTC, Kelet wrote: Hi Lars, I've actually never used ZeroMQ but it seems interesting. There exists a binding called dzmq[1], but there are no immediate examples. I looked for something like this before I started, so I wouldn't duplicate any

Re: [RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-22 Thread Lars T. Kyllingstad
On Sunday, 22 December 2013 at 01:49:59 UTC, Kelet wrote: * Create a package.json and add it to the DUB registry[2]. The zmqd package is now available through the DUB registry.

Re: [RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-22 Thread Philippe Sigaud
After reviewing the API and comparing it to the C API, I think you did a fine job accomplishing this. I concur. zmqd user code looks much cleaner than the original C code. Kudos to you! I also like the docs. I see you used your own ddoc file (https://github.com/kyllingstad/ltkdoc). Clean and

Re: [RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-22 Thread Lars T. Kyllingstad
On Sunday, 22 December 2013 at 12:52:23 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote: After reviewing the API and comparing it to the C API, I think you did a fine job accomplishing this. I concur. zmqd user code looks much cleaner than the original C code. Kudos to you! Thanks! I also like the docs. I

Re: [RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-22 Thread Martin Nowak
On 12/22/2013 09:34 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: * Create a package.json and add it to the DUB registry[2]. I have taken the liberty at making a simple package.json that may work but is untested[3]. I've never used DUB myself, but I will try to use your package file. Thanks! Add a CI

Re: [RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-22 Thread Jonathan Dunlap
+1 The API surface feels fantastic! This is EXACTLY the kind of D bindings I would wish for when we bind to existing C libraries. It adds just enough D flavor to soften the edges of the client implementation; while not substantially changing the core library surface (which helps when you have

[RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-21 Thread Lars T. Kyllingstad
I've been working on a D wrapper for the ∅MQ (aka. ZMQ/ZeroMQ) messaging library, and I think it's nearly ready for an official release. However, I would immensely appreciate some feedback on the API first. Code: https://github.com/kyllingstad/zmqd Docs: http://kyllingstad.github.io/zmqd

Re: [RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-21 Thread Kelet
On Sunday, 22 December 2013 at 00:18:51 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: I've been working on a D wrapper for the ∅MQ (aka. ZMQ/ZeroMQ) messaging library, and I think it's nearly ready for an official release. However, I would immensely appreciate some feedback on the API first. Code:

Re: [RFC] ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D

2013-12-21 Thread Kelet
On Sunday, 22 December 2013 at 00:18:51 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: I've tried to stay as close as possible to the design of the C library, while adding a distinct D feel. Details are in the documentation. After reviewing the API and comparing it to the C API, I think you did a fine job