On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Kelly Brock <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brian, > >> >> 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. > > Actually, the latest Bonjour distro's for Win32 and OsX both > directly include easy Wan setup. Just add the external domain to your prefs > page and it simply works. I use this when I work from home and just link my > local boxes to my work domain so I can get services started locally which I > can then debug against but still using the full production environment. It > used to be a real pain as you mention, but they seem to have fixed it up.
That is great news, I haven't looked at this stuff for a while. >> 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. > > At this point I'll just say that ZeroConf, once you have a decent > wrapper, is still my favorite solution. No futzing around, it just tends to > work. Yep. Cheers, Brian > KB > > -- 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
