On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Martin Sustrik <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/15/2010 11:10 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Gaspard Bucher<[email protected]> wrote: >>> Because in my environment (art installations, stage performances) nobody >>> runs a DNS server... And even if such a server would be running, we do not >>> want to use fixed IP (requires configuration on every box). A box here is >>> something as small as a motion captor, a keyboard, etc. >>> Imagine you have to configure the IP of your keyboard, then set the DNS >>> server and so one before you can start to play ? >> >> Martin and I tend to disagree over this. On the one hand 0MQ has the >> policy of using network resources and services wherever possible. On >> the other hand, as a developer, DNS is out of reach to me and >> essentially useless as a place to put my endpoints. >> >> So I'm going to make a simple 0MQ name service as an example for the >> Guide. It is really not as complex as it sounds, especially when we >> have 0MQ as the network backbone. > > It's rather a matter of focus. Your focus in on small enterprise where > simple location service may work just fine (LAN, an admin that will fix > network issues ASAP etc.) My focus is on Internet as a highly unreliable > environment with no easy way to fix problems. There, DNS-style approach > is more appropriate IMO.
I have played with zeroconf some before and on the LAN it is *very* nice and easy to get going. In this context, I would definitely consider zeroconf. However, last time I looked, on the WAN zeroconf requires running a custom DNS server and it is quite a pain to setup. The other downside of zeroconf in deployment is that is requires extra dependencies. Thus, I don't think that zeroconf is the end of the story for naming services on the WAN/internet. For zeromq based apps and servers, it would be quite nice to have a zeromq based naming service and I have often though about writing one myself. But, because of the security issues, such a naming service won't be as useful on the WAN quite yet. In summary, on the LAN both zeroconf and a zeromq based naming service both make good sense. On the WAN, neither do right now. Cheers, Brian > Martin > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > -- Brian E. Granger, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Physics Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo [email protected] [email protected] _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
