[nanomsg] Re: implementing ROUTER in 0mq
- From: Lyle Thompson <lthompson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:48:08 +0000
Hi Paul,
Yes, the peer could supply its identity in the message. I was just concerned
about multiple peers claiming the same name. Perhaps it could be an error to do
so. I would prefer to allowing it, but have a mechanism in place to route
replies back to the originating peer regardless of what it called itself.
I suspect there's a certain gestalt for nanomsg that's bit different than the
0mq "way", that I'm still working to understand.
Regards,
Lyle
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nanomsg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nanomsg-
> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Colomiets
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:58 PM
> To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [nanomsg] Re: implementing ROUTER in 0mq
>
> Hi Lyle,
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Lyle Thompson <lthompson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > I am looking to reimplement a message broker that I wrote in 0mq with
> > nanomsg. I was using ROUTER extensively in that implementation, which
> > of course nanomsg doesn’t have. So I’m just looking for some
> > implementation advice. So it all starts with the receiving socket,
> > which needs to accept connections from multiple sources, associate the
> > connection “name” with that socket and prepend it to the message as
> > the first “frame”, and then pass the message on up. Later, when
> > sending a message, I will pop the first “frame”, look up the associated
> socket, and send it down.
>
> What is the purpose of the "name"? You may just add a "name" to every
> message and forget of thinking in terms of connections, but rather think
> about messages from named peers. Sure it's not viable if that is a security
> feature. In the latter case you may better use encryption.
>
> Just a thought, not sure if it's the best advice :)
>
>
> --
> Paul
Other related posts:
