[nanomsg] Re: Port sharing, tcpmux, web-related roadmap et c.

  • From: Paul Colomiets <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:44:53 +0200

Hi,

And to support my point, here are conclusions that bu.mp guys reached
when developing "nitro":

http://docs.gonitro.io/#faq

(A question "How is this different than ZeroMQ?").

The nitro developed as a library to be used on public, large-scale
internet. And there are many interesting conclusions. In particular:

> Nitro provides more transparency about the socket/queue state (client X is 
> connected, queue count is Y) for monitoring reasons and because clients quite 
> often never come back in public networks, so state needs to be cleared, etc

And:

> In practice we found the "typed socket" paradigm (REQ/REP/PUSH) more of a 
> hindrance than a help. We often ended up with hybrid schemes, like "REQ/maybe 
> REP", or "REQ/multi REP"

There is more. So please read the original text.

--
Paul

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. nanomsg
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2014