[nanomsg] Re: The nanocat utility
- From: Kevin Baker <kbaker@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:30:08 -0500
Just consider the shell/shell scripting as a higher level language in
itself. Then nanocat is just another language binding, albeit with a
different concept of data flow, different calling conventions, and
different set of libraries available for data manipulation
(grep/sed/cut/awk/head).
Kevin
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Schmurfy <schmurfy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
