[nanomsg] Re: The nanocat utility
- From: Schmurfy <schmurfy@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:07:42 +0200
what you need to compare is the c source vs the python source ;)
I was just pointing out that for debug/dev you have more control on a
scripted version than with a c utility you can't modify easily (parse json,
msgpack, ...).
On 29 August 2013 20:54, Paul Colomiets <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Schmurfy,
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Schmurfy <schmurfy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I really like the idea of such tool to help debugging although I think
> the
> > simplest way of actually doing it is using on the bindings available and
> > do it in higher level languages.
> > One of the advantages of using ruby/python/... is that you easily
> manipulate
> > the data.
>
> Compare:
>
> nanocat --sub --connect tcp://127.0.0.1:1234
>
> with:
>
> python -c 'import nn; s=nn.socket(nn.AF_SP, nn.NN_SUB);
> s.connect("tcp://127.0.0.1:1245"); s.setsockopt(nn.SUBSCRIBE, b"");
> print(s.recv())'
>
> You may imagine loop for NN_REP.
>
> You may also try to google for zmqcat, to find out how many users of
> such an utility (and thats not counting zmqc, zc, pjutil, and other
> more rare names)
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
Other related posts:
