[nanomsg] Re: Moving forward
- From: Bent Cardan <bent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:34:50 -0400
+1 what Alexander said. That's why it's MIT LICENSE I think. And I want to
be looped in on that. you could just use this mailing list and GitHub.
for the record I would only want to see option a) over the other ones. Over
the years Sustrik has been tremendously generous with his talent, asking
him for specific stuff is not fair IMO. His contributions to make network
programming more accessible and to open source are a legacy and a part of
open source history that will be studied by people later on. Cheers. I
would mail him a box of cigars if anything.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Alexander Williams <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Hi Garrett,
>
> I've written one of the ffi bindings for nanomsg (picolisp) and had a good
> chance to review and work with the C code.
>
> From what I've seen on the list, you seem to care quite a bit about this
> library. I don't see why you need anyone's permission to fork it and do as
> you wish (review/merge other people's PRs, etc).
>
> In fact, I think that's the spirit of open source. Rather than continually
> requesting Martin's participation, why don't you just do it? At this point
> you've more than proven your ability and interest in moving this project
> forward, and i'll gladly work with (test&review) an implemention that is
> maintained/supported over one that's not.
>
> As a side note, I personally have no interest in Go, threads, pthreads, or
> TLS support (unnecessary overhead in a closed network of nanomsg nodes), so
> I wouldnt be using Mangos or any of those features you plan to implement in
> a forked version.
>
> This is my personal view on the whole thing. You can continue discussing
> about it as you wish, but if you care so much then i'd rather you just take
> the lead and send us the link when it's ready ;)
>
> Finally, if you decide to fork and improve things on your own, keeping
> backwards compatibility with Nanomsg in its current state, then you also
> introduce the ability to be merged back in. That wouldn't be such a bad
> thing.
>
> Thanks for your hard work!
>
>
> AW
>
> On 2015-03-19, at 9:15 AM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 18, 2015, at 4:44 PM, Isam Habbab <isam.habbab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I apologize at the outset, I am a newcomer to nanomsg and I am thinking of
> using it in my applications as a messaging enabler in a C/C++ financial
> application. I have been reading the freelists emails and I would greatly
> appreciate it if someone helps me understand the background to the issues
> and where things stand now. If anyone would like to do that privately
> without cluttering up the group chats please email me at
> isam.habbab@xxxxxxxxx (thanks a lot)
>
>
> The technology, while not perfect, is probably a good fit for this use.
> You of course need to assess it for yourself, of course. It is far less
> mature, but greatly simpler, than zeromq.
>
> As far as the community — lots of people using this stuff, although its
> still nothing like zeromq in adoption. There are fewer contributors,
> though there are some. Unfortunately, the creator of the project, Martin,
> has been mostly absentee for the past several months, which has left the
> project without a lot of leadership. Hopefully this is just a temporary
> hurdle.
>
> - Garrett
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >> a) Martin suddenly renews his interest and activity in the project,
>> and reasserts control and leadership.
>> >>
>> >> b) The community (working with Martin’s consent), appoints some
>> additional leadership, who can be called upon to provide technical
>> leadership to keep the project moving forward. (Indeed, I think this is
>> similar to what happened with ØMQ.)
>> >>
>> >> c) A new fork is started from nanomsg.
>> >
>> > I'd like to see (b) happen, where we start by adding you as an
>> > additional maintainer for the current nanomsg project (though that
>> > would be quite different from how I experienced what happened with
>> > 0MQ). If that somehow doesn't happen, I'd certainly consider using
>> > your fork for any future projects where I need something nanomsg-like.
>>
>> Well, I’m agreeable if we can get Martin engaged. If not, then I think
>> we need to fork.
>>
>> - Garrett
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
