I think you are comparing apples and oranges. SCTP is an actual transport protocol.
0mq is a socket library that can be layered on top of any kind of transport. Right now it supports "inproc" (comm between threads), "ipc" (interprocess communication), "pgm" (multicast), and "tcp" (you know what this is). No one has done this yet, but you could create a new transport called "sctp" so that 0mq could support that too. The reason you would want to do this is to take advantage of the other details that 0mq handles for you. For example, it handles all framing by providing a standardized wire protocol. Two, it offers multiple kinds of patterns like request/reply, pub/sub, etc. Three, for each pattern it has clear semantics on how to load-balance amongst multiple endpoints, behaviors for blocking/non-blocking, etc. If you still aren't sure how 0mq is different, think of this: How do you use SCTP's API to create a request/reply configuration that automatically worked from one requestor load-balanced across a dozen available repliers? cr On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Chris Yourch wrote: > It seems like there are some similarities between what SCTP is capable of > and what ØMQ is capable of. Can anyone tell me the pros and cons of each? > > I ask because we were considering on using SCTP on a future project but ØMQ > seems like it may be a better fit. > > Thanks! > > Chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
