Chris,
> Different style in naming. I prefer to keep it more Rubyist. If
> create_socket is common in Python, it's perfectly good that way.
I might end up going with "socket" as well depending on how others
like you go on this one. I do think it is important to try to stay
somewhat close to t
On Mar 1, 2010, at 9:29 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> Chris,
>
>> 2. I prefer option 2.
>>
>>ctxt = ZMQ::Context.new
>>sock = ctxt.socket(ZMQ::PUB)
>
> Other than the socket being named "create_socket" this is what I am
> doing with Python bindings.
>
Different style in naming.
Chris,
> 2. I prefer option 2.
>
> ctxt = ZMQ::Context.new
> sock = ctxt.socket(ZMQ::PUB)
Other than the socket being named "create_socket" this is what I am
doing with Python bindings.
> This style allow chaining... especially for one-liner.
>
> ZMQ::Context.new(1,1).socket(ZMQ::S
On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:50 PM, Chris Wong wrote:
> Here is my $0.02 on Ruby.
>
> 1. There is no need for the Factory pattern in Ruby. ;-) In Ruby, the class
> object is the factory. That said, I don't think the context object is the
> same as factory object though. One can have multiple ZMQ::C
Here is my $0.02 on Ruby.
1. There is no need for the Factory pattern in Ruby. ;-) In Ruby, the class
object is the factory. That said, I don't think the context object is the same
as factory object though. One can have multiple ZMQ::Context objects, but you
can only have one Class object in
My 0.02...
> ctx = new ZMQ::Context();
> sock = ctx.socket(ZMQ::PUB);
>
> And following on from that:
>
> sock.setsockopt(ZMQ::SUBSCRIBE, "");
> sock.connect("tcp://192.168.1.1:");
With the Python bindings, I have used the following approach, which closely
follows the above compromise:
ctx =
cremes.devl...@mac.com said:
> >> For the Java and Ruby cases, why not move to a factory pattern where
> >> a class method instantiates and returns an object containing the
> >> context and all of the other bits?
> >> // Java z = ZMQ.factory(); s = z.makeSocket(ZMQ::PUB);
> >> # Ruby z = ZMQ.factor
On Mar 1, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
>> For the Java and Ruby cases, why not move to a factory pattern where
>> a class method instantiates and returns an object containing the
>> context and all of the other bits?
>> // Java z = ZMQ.factory(); s = z.makeSocket(ZMQ::P
Hi Chuck,
> For the Java and Ruby cases, why not move to a factory pattern where
> a class method instantiates and returns an object containing the
> context and all of the other bits?
>
> // Java z = ZMQ.factory(); s = z.makeSocket(ZMQ::PUB);
>
> # Ruby z = ZMQ.factory s = z.make_socket ZMQ::PU
sust...@250bpm.com said:
> Right. We should decide which one is nicer:
>
> z = new ZMQ ();
> s = z.makeSocket (ZMQ::PUB);
>
> z = new ZMQ::Context ();
> s = new ZMQ::Socket (z, ZMQ::PUB);
>
> My preference is for the latter. Two reasons:
>
> 1. It's the current way it is. No need to change the
On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:51 AM, gonzalo diethelm wrote:
z = new ZMQ ();
s = z.makeSocket (ZMQ::PUB);
z = new ZMQ::Context ();
s = new ZMQ::Socket (z, ZMQ::PUB);
My preference is for the latter. Two reasons:
1. It's the current way it is. No need to cha
gonzalo diethelm wrote:
>> I had forgotten 0MQ probably keeps an internal list of sockets
>> associated with its context; it certainly makes sense to have all
>> outstanding socket operations fail in a graceful manner. I like this
>> approach.
>
> So we should probably have a way to close a specif
> I had forgotten 0MQ probably keeps an internal list of sockets
> associated with its context; it certainly makes sense to have all
> outstanding socket operations fail in a graceful manner. I like this
> approach.
So we should probably have a way to close a specific socket, and a way
to signal t
> >> z = new ZMQ ();
> >> s = z.makeSocket (ZMQ::PUB);
> >>
> >> z = new ZMQ::Context ();
> >> s = new ZMQ::Socket (z, ZMQ::PUB);
> >>
> >> My preference is for the latter. Two reasons:
> >>
> >> 1. It's the current way it is. No need to change the API.
> >> 2. It's more obvious what's going on. Th
gonzalo diethelm wrote:
>>> A few comments. Sorry for not sending a patch; I am in Chile, where
>>> we were recently hit by a major earthquake, so my access to the repo
>>> is flaky at best.
>> I've read about it in paper. I hope you and your family are OK!
>
> Yes, thank you for the concern. I am
> > A few comments. Sorry for not sending a patch; I am in Chile, where
> > we were recently hit by a major earthquake, so my access to the repo
> > is flaky at best.
>
> I've read about it in paper. I hope you and your family are OK!
Yes, thank you for the concern. I am in Santiago, where the qu
Hi Gonzalo,
> A few comments. Sorry for not sending a patch; I am in Chile, where
> we were recently hit by a major earthquake, so my access to the repo
> is flaky at best.
I've read about it in paper. I hope you and your family are OK!
> Change "binging" to ""binding" in this paragraph: "As the
> There have been a discussion about providing a set of standard
> guidelines that all language bindings should follow. The obvious idea is
> to maintain at least some consistency between 0MQ APIs for different
> languages.
>
> I've started with the document, however, it would benefit from your
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
