I’m not against this idea. My earlier posts were to make sure people understood some of the reasons why it wasn’t written in “real” C++ the first time through.
Maybe C++17 (or C++20??) are the magic bullet. I hope so. I look forward to the fork and the clean, elegant code you all will write to make this work. > On May 19, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Harald Achitz <harald.ach...@gmail.com> wrote: > > libzmq11 is not enough, as said, until this is usable c++17 will be old. > C++14 is indeed a bugfix version of C++11, but a very required one. > C++17 is big and important, do not believe what some less relevant people > write in the net. > the next big thing is c++20, modules, concepts, maybe even network. hopefully > reflections > Please, those who not like it, I know Martins post about C++, ignore this. > If you are not interested in a modern C++ zmq implementation, this is OK, but > leaf this topic alone. > Modernizing the existing implementation is not an option, using it as a > templat to look what to do, and how - or how not - is an option. > maybe a modern C++ implementation will ever exist and this is just > discussion, but I find it nice that I am not the only one thinking about > that. > and who knows, if one person was able to make a zmq implementation in java, > why not in modern c++ > I think it is enough to be able to communicate with a libzmq implementation > > /Harald > > > > > > 2017-05-19 18:24 GMT+02:00 Doron Somech <somdo...@gmail.com > <mailto:somdo...@gmail.com>>: > We need to maintain libzmq as it the stable repository. I suggest a new > project, maybe called libzmq11. > > I think we should fork and update the code and not a rewrite. IMHO Rewrite > will fail, as other rewrites attempt failed. > > Regarding porting ongoing pull requests, I don't think we need to do that. As > other port of libzmq (NetMQ and JeroMQ) don't port every pull request. > If a user want to port a solution to a problem they can just send a pull > request. > > It is very important to maintain the same API as libzmq, as this will what > make users upgrade to the new version. We can mark the entire API as > obsolete, make a new one which is using C++11 (and can be called from other > languages and frameworks) but support the old API none the less. > > The main problem I see with this project is that 99.5% of the users of zeromq > don't care. They will not benefit directly from the upgrade. They will > benefit if the new version will be more active and will solve new problems. > > So, to summarize: > 1. Fork, don't rewrite > 2. Use C4 > 3. Maintain the same API > 4. Obsolete old API and create new cooler API (if you really want to) > 5. Find a way users will benefit from the move > 6. It will take time, years probably, be patient > > > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Aram Santogidis <aram.santogi...@cern.ch > <mailto:aram.santogi...@cern.ch>> wrote: > I'm happy that you guys like the idea and are willing to contribute. > > I see two separate issues from the remarks made so far. > > 1) Fork and modernize current codebase or write from scratch. > 2) Update libzmq or create a new ZeroMQ project under a different name. > > The point 1) has to do with the technical aspects of the undertaking. > The point 2) is related to ZeroMQ project managemnt/policy matters. > > Doron, I like your suggestion about forking instead of starting from scratch. > What would be your position on point 2)? > For me this is the sticking point and it is not obvious which option is best. > > If changes will be committed back to libzmq then compatibility will be broken > for legacy systems from a certain version and beyond. The alternative option > of creating a new project potentially leads to (community) resource > fragmentation and "branding" issues. > > Regarding C++11,14... well I think the question at hand is not which exact > version of C++ should be adopted but rather if the project will follow the > evolution of the language and related technologies, with whatever "phase" > difference serves best the community. > > PS: Does anybody know how big is the usergroup that runs ZeroMQ on Windows XP > and such? Not even Microsoft support XP anymore. > > Cheers, > Aram > > > > On 19.05.2017 15:21, BJovke . wrote: > I have a feeling that C++14 and C++17 are just improvements of C++11. > C++11 is the game changer, 14 and 17 don't bring ground breaking stuff. > > I would be also happy to contribute to C++11 libzmq but I'm not sure how much > stuff I can do. > I'm currently not familiar with inner workings of libzmq enough detailed to > be confident to rewrite it, although I'm reading the docs and code day by day. > My time to spend is questionable, sometimes I have a lot of time and > sometimes I cannot contribute for days or even weeks. > > There are also many aspects of libzmq which make it hard to adopt the code, > instead requiring complete rewrite: > > > > > 2017-05-18 20:29 GMT+02:00 Jens Auer <jens.a...@betaversion.net > <mailto:jens.a...@betaversion.net> <mailto:jens.a...@betaversion.net > <mailto:jens.a...@betaversion.net>>>: > > > Hi, > > I would be happy to contribute to such a project, even if many users > will stay with the "old" code. For me, it is a great way to learn > something. I would also be happy to aim for C++14 or even C++17 once > it is officially released. I think structured bindings and the new > if (init; condition) will be very helpful. C++17 also has > std::optional. > > Cheers, > Jens > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: zeromq-dev [mailto:zeromq-dev-boun...@lists.zeromq.org > <mailto:zeromq-dev-boun...@lists.zeromq.org> > <mailto:zeromq-dev-boun...@lists.zeromq.org > <mailto:zeromq-dev-boun...@lists.zeromq.org>>] Im Auftrag von Aram > Santogidis > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Mai 2017 10:57 > An: ZeroMQ development list > Betreff: Re: [zeromq-dev] Porting libzmq to C++11 > > Hi, > > a good reason to modernize the codebase, or even better to create a > new project ala libzmq11, is to help its evolution with new > networking technologies and software engineering practices. > > As an example, consider the difficulties many faced (including > myself) in extending ZeroMQ to support RDMA-based networking > interfaces. The current design and implementation is hostile to such > extensions. > Honestly, C++98 or not, I think it still can be done but with major > cost in development effort and additional complexity to an already > complex codebase. > > Moving to C++11 and beyond is not merely an argument of fashion, as > some of you implied, but it is vital for its future. > C++ and related technologies evolve and libzmq stays behind. New > developers are reluctant to contribute once they have a look at the > current design and implementation (old school C++ roughly speaking). > > Think for example when networking will be included in the standard, > how much ugly code that juggles platform differences could be > eliminated from the current implementation. Same applies for > threading, which is in the standard since C++11. > > I don't underestimate the importance (and the size?) of the current > userbase. I'm aware from first-hand experience about some fairly > critical software that relies on libzmq. > > I guess the idea is to create i) a new project in the ZeroMQ > organization that ii) implements ZMTP and iii) the non-depricated > ZMQ socket types. The public API of libzmq should be a subset of the > libzmq11 so that will facilitate the transition of users, in the > long term, that do not run on legacy systems. > > I will happily contribute to such an effort provided that there will > be at least one or two experienced members from the community that > will join this effort. > > Cheers, > Aram > > > > > > On 17.05.2017 16:54, BJovke . wrote: > > Well, you're right. There must be a good reason for such an > undertaking. > > I too feel that C++11 itself is not good enough reason. > > Anyway there has to be enough people willing to contribute to it. > > > > I was just saying this because no idea should be discarded right > away, > > but for sure there needs to be a valid need and reason for it. > > > > Greetings. > > > > 2017-05-17 16:15 GMT+02:00 Doron Somech <somdo...@gmail.com > <mailto:somdo...@gmail.com> > <mailto:somdo...@gmail.com <mailto:somdo...@gmail.com>> > > <mailto:somdo...@gmail.com <mailto:somdo...@gmail.com> > <mailto:somdo...@gmail.com <mailto:somdo...@gmail.com>>>>: > > > > What will be the benefit from moving to C++11? And more important > > what is the benefit from having two projects? one supporting > C++11 > > and one not? > > > > I think that maintaining two repositories is hard and not > sure for > > what cause? > > > > Anyway, if some one want to do it, in the zeromq philosophy, > please > > fork and add the project to the zeromq organization. > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:29 PM, <li...@chuckremes.com > <mailto:li...@chuckremes.com> > <mailto:li...@chuckremes.com <mailto:li...@chuckremes.com>> > > <mailto:li...@chuckremes.com <mailto:li...@chuckremes.com> > <mailto:li...@chuckremes.com <mailto:li...@chuckremes.com>>>> > wrote: > > > > > > > On May 17, 2017, at 7:56 AM, BJovke . <bjo...@gmail.com > <mailto:bjo...@gmail.com> > <mailto:bjo...@gmail.com <mailto:bjo...@gmail.com>> > <mailto:bjo...@gmail.com <mailto:bjo...@gmail.com> > > <mailto:bjo...@gmail.com <mailto:bjo...@gmail.com>>>> wrote: > > > > > > Hello. > > > > > > Libzmq is not even fully C++ compliant: > > > - There's no exception handling. > > > - There are no RAII principles implemented. > > > - Parent/child object hierarchy is loose or not > implemented, all of the burden of proper order of calls is on > programmer. > > > > > > And so on... > > > > > > C++11 is really a remarkable feat of engineering and me > personally like to see fully C++11 implemented software. > > > Unfortunately, for libzmq this would require > substantial rewrite of the library. > > > > > > Maybe there's an option to create another parallel > branch to existing libzmq or even create another product, for > example "libzmq11"? > > > On the wire this could be 100% compatible with > non-C++11 libzmq but there would be 0% chance to compile older > projects with it. > > > > This is a good time to bring out some old blog posts. Martin > > Sustrik was the original developer of libzmq. He had some > > thoughts on why he should have written the library in C > instead > > of C++. Here you go: > > > > http://250bpm.com/blog:4 <http://250bpm.com/blog:4> > > > > http://250bpm.com/blog:8 <http://250bpm.com/blog:8> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org>> > <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org>>> > > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>> > > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>>> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org>> > <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org>>> > > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>> > > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>>> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jovan Bunjevački. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org>> > > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>> > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org>> > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>> > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org>> > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>> > > > > > -- > > Jovan Bunjevački. > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
