Matt Weinstein wrote: > On Aug 11, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Jon Dyte wrote: > > >> whilst on the subject of devices and the good points made within >> this thread >> I do have some reservations about these more 'esoteric' uses and the >> existing devices. >> >> initially we had >> 1) queue which conventionally takes XREP/XREQ pair >> 2) forwarder which conventionally is SUB/PUB >> 3) streamer which is UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM (or it's renames!) >> >> as people are pointing out it's quite possible to combine sockets of >> other types in the devices >> as well as connect other-than-intended peer sockets. some of these are >> really insightful ideas >> but i do wonder whether the 'core' devices shouldnt stick to intended >> sockets. >> >> > > In theory, you could do this: > > [[[ clients ]]] [ REQ ]* --- [ XREP ] [ DEVICE ] [ PAIR ] =/\/\/ > (network)\/\/\= [ PAIR ] [ DEVICE ] [ XREQ ] --- [ REP ]* > [[[ servers ]]] > > and it should work and be "standard" relative to the specs. > > >> Most of the other uses seem to have involved people writing new code >> as >> well which is fine, >> because I don't think these devices should cater for all situations, >> but >> equally not crash .... >> >> > > Standard devices are fine, but cannot be overly restrictive, because > they only have limited information. > > Don't forget a lot of the solutions out on this list are laboratory > specimens, and there's a bit of experimentation and caveat emptor if > you overshoot the limits. >
Yes I realise, this, I think some the of uses posted are wonderful and clever. I have been looking at yr zmq_reactor for example, because I think it could make writing more complex interactions simpler. > The crash occurred because an input specification was not met. There > are several ways to fix that within the current architecture. > Ensuring it "stays fixed" crosses the old invisible line between > "coding" to "systems engineering". > > So far, I've been delighted with what ØMQ can achieve "out of the box" > and would have had to reinvent the paradigms if they weren't already > present. > > I think what you get out of the box is excellent and fairly easy to get going with. >> I was under the impression that the sockets exchanged a 1 byte message >> on connection. Could >> they also check they are compatible and terminate the connection if >> not? >> >> jon >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > > Best, > > Matt > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
