On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Brian Granger <elliso...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Now, if you truly want to define 0MQ as a standard way of communicating >>> across applications / languages / Oss, then yes, you need to standardize >>> the data representation. I personally believe this road leads to madness. >> >> +1 >> >> One of my favorite parts of 0MQ is that it doesn't specify the data rep. > > Specifying _the_ data rep would be insane. Specifying _a_ data rep > might be useful. Inevitably we're going to have to do this when we > start to layer on top of 0MQ to do things like security, subscription > upstreaming, reliability, etc. These will (I guess) be layered > protocols (and layer apps) put on top of 0MQ but they will need a > simple fast standardized data rep. As soon as you want to put two > strings into a message header you need some representation. >
While people have this in mind: The following may be of interest? http://eigenclass.org/R2/writings/extprot-extensible-protocols-intro HTH? Mark > We can avoid the problem for a while, work around it by using > multipart (as we do for adding the request-reply address) but it seems > to me that we're going to have to bite the bullet sooner or later. > > Or... make an external dependency on something like protocol buffers. > Which is nastier IMO. > > I was not convinced but writing this email kind of convinced me. > > -Pieter > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
