Brian - The issue is that with the new api and to enable thread safety the routing id is part of the message. So czmq new api should somehow expose routing id on the message and/or part of the send message. On Feb 2, 2015 7:39 PM, "Brian Knox" <bk...@digitalocean.com> wrote:
> Doron - > > I did a test implementation around this idea in goczmq today and I'm > liking the semantics. I wrote an interface that conforms to io.Reader and > io.Writer where you pass a call a byte buffer and you get the message > placed into it. > > When the socket is a router socket, it silently drops the ID frame under > the hood, but sets a lastClientID in the socket struct, that if you need, > you can get with a GetLastClientID call. > > For reference: > > https://github.com/zeromq/goczmq/blob/master/sock.go#L35 (note "strings" > in go are just immutable byte arrays) > > https://github.com/zeromq/goczmq/blob/master/sock.go#L333 > > https://github.com/zeromq/goczmq/blob/master/sock.go#L366 > > So if the socket is a router, the Write call just transparently uses the > lastClientID value. In a one to one request / reply, you then don't need > to think about it at all, and if you need to do async work, you can get and > set the id as needed. > > I'll just move this to use the new API later - just wanted to try it out > and see how I liked it, and I say thumbs up to dropping frames on the new > Server / Client sockets. > > > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Doron Somech <somdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> So the new sockets are in the github master, you can take a loot at the >> test to see how to use the new routing id field: >> >> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/master/tests/test_client_server.cpp >> >> Few of the reasons I didn't like multi frames: >> * I tried in the past to make both zeromq and NetMQ thread safe, think of >> sending from multiple threads or receiving from multiple threads. we cannot >> do that with Multipart. >> * There are a lot of good transport that already implement message >> framing (UDP, WebSockets, SCTP and even HTTP), but because zeromq required >> it is own framing it was not easy to add them. >> * Multipart, router usage (routing id frame) and not being thread safe >> make the learning curve of zeromq hard to beginners. Without three of them >> zeromq become much simpler. >> * At least with NetMQ single part message is much faster than multipart. >> * New stacks, multipart is complicated to implement, with the new API it >> will much more easier to implement new stacks (like JSMQ) or any native >> stack. >> >> Pieter I'm looking forward to see how you expose the routing id in the >> czmq API. >> I also like the czmq API for sending mutlipart messages (the picture >> feature) so maybe we can use that to generate single frame which is also >> compatible with zproto. >> >> About the implementation, none of new sockets support any option now. >> server behave like mandatory router, so when router is not reachable or >> highwater mark is reached an error will be returned. >> >> As ZMTP 3.1 is still in raw status, what do you think of removing the >> multipart from it? maybe the 3.1 will only support the new socket types. >> >> Anyway I really excited about this change. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Thomas Rodgers <rodg...@twrodgers.com> >> wrote: >> >>> What we really want IMO is per-peer metadata, and an API to get/set >>>> this. Using messages is a hack. >>> >>> >>> Currently working on that :) >>> >>> Having two layers that both >>>> carry per-message data is... wrong IMO. >>> >>> >>> Protocols supporting 'out of band' data aren't exactly uncommon. >>> >>> However the key thing is, what's the problem. Then we can discuss >>>> solutions to that. >>> >>> >>> I don't have an immediate use-case justifying it. I noted it, mostly >>> because it has come up a few times since I started paying attention. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> > It seems to me that in order to remove multi-part messages and >>>> introduce new >>>> > socket types (e.g. SERVER/CLIENT) that would >>>> > necessitate a revision of the wire protocol. If we are going to do >>>> that, it >>>> > might be worth considering per-message >>>> > metadata - >>>> >>>> We'd have to be very clear about the problem that per-message metadata >>>> is aiming for. There is an elegance to delivering blobs and nothing >>>> more. Metadata can be added on top using zproto. >>>> >>>> What we really want IMO is per-peer metadata, and an API to get/set >>>> this. Using messages is a hack. If we are sending/receiving data on a >>>> per-message basis, that is the message. Having two layers that both >>>> carry per-message data is... wrong IMO. >>>> >>>> However the key thing is, what's the problem. Then we can discuss >>>> solutions to that. >>>> >>>> -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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
