Hi all,
A question to the list about release policies[1] and the 3.x development.
Background: we are removing ZMQ_IDENTITY from the product, it's a
necessary step to continuing to improve the product. (Incidentally, if
you are using ZMQ_IDENTITY, let us know your use case).
The current release p
On Jul 18, 2011, at 7:26 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A question to the list about release policies[1] and the 3.x development.
>
> Background: we are removing ZMQ_IDENTITY from the product, it's a
> necessary step to continuing to improve the product. (Incidentally, if
> you are usi
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> we are removing ZMQ_IDENTITY from the product, it's a
> necessary step to continuing to improve the product. (Incidentally, if
> you are using ZMQ_IDENTITY, let us know your use case).
Our use case for ZMQ_IDENTITY is this: We have a few
PH> Does people (and especially binding authors) prefer:
PH> (a) starting a 4.0 version for this work (which means that 3.x will
PH> stop when 3.0.x is mature)
PH> (b) doing this work in 3.1, and changing the release policies to allow this.
I don't have a strong investment in IDENTITY, but this h
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Marcus Cavanaugh
wrote:
> Our use case for ZMQ_IDENTITY is this: We have a few stateful backend
> services that need to communicate with other servers. We need to direct
> requests to specific services, so round-robin balancing doesn't work. (We
> can't easily mak
I don't think the numbering actually matters (unless you really like the number
3). Numbering seems to be more of a marketing/political issue if it ever does
matter. I suspect the topic of breaking backwards compatibility and how to
handle it is more important. We will have this when we move fro
>From my perspective, the bottom line is: "Just decide what you guys
want to do and stick to it"
Because that will be easier to explain in my docs for my users.
So in that sense, while I don't care which way or the other engineering-wise,
if you've already released 3.x with IDENTITY (whoops), I'd
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A question to the list about release policies[1] and the 3.x development.
>
> Background: we are removing ZMQ_IDENTITY from the product, it's a
> necessary step to continuing to improve the product. (Incidentally, if
> you are u
On Jul 19, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> A question to the list about release policies[1] and the 3.x development.
>>
>> Background: we are removing ZMQ_IDENTITY from the product, it's a
>> necessary step to co
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:42, Chuck Remes wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> A question to the list about release policies[1] and the 3.x development.
>>>
>>> Background: we are removing ZMQ
On 07/20/2011 10:42 AM, Chuck Remes wrote:
> Now, what I am about to say may be completely wrong. As I've followed
> this issue over the last several weeks, I have always thought the
> problem that Martin had with ZMQ_IDENTITY was the ability to set a
> *custom* identity. Using a byte array of arb
11 matches
Mail list logo
