[nanomsg] Re: initial code repo for Go version of SP protocols

  • From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:03:56 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 24/03/14 08:58, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Garrett D'Amore
> <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Filtering on the publisher side is something that should be
>>> done. There are some hard theoretical problems involved though
>>> (what to do when the publisher is not able to accept new
>>> subscriptions?) Also, you are right that multicast is cheaper
>>> broadband-wise and doesn't necessarily require filtering on the
>>> publisher side.
>> 
>> I think for now, we should keep the subscriber side filtering.
>> We can invent a new protocol when/if the need arises.   The nice
>> thing about the work you’ve done is that it is easy to extend.
>> Admittedly, its easier to extend in Go than in C, but that’s more
>> due to Pike and company than anything else. :-)
> 
> You should make sure to warn users if you don't do publisher-side 
> filtering. The difference in performance characteristics for some 
> scenarios is so large, that I think it should really be
> publisher-side filtered before you call it nanomsg-compatible
> PUB/SUB.

The thing being that nanomsg itself has no publisher-side filtering yet :)

Martin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTL+bsAAoJENTpVjxCNN9YzjQH/0ml1bbs5ZRsd/AvJds8hWFp
80igCzLld48o1qJ6w9toQvRBEXQg2rhcJHf3G/r4t2BGbVgwMxhNXhueNMNaSowL
bzlZboz0nkf1Eh3jvH0bAyI287HyjN/nyhz6+KHGDgkrUpupmW7SdypgTTVs+gu3
bf0BivwDzzrI9jILmKTpiKQH0chlZsYnNFvDwhho/tSXoqBQqcmx5nS5WkjF89mt
A8u8EVj7XdzIgsWNNRoji9BKskctOdjU7yWe1tiYBS2KSj+vTvewJPXMAZ7jQAAf
0LSIS7fnWU4FsH1JZYhs3CSSBPZ33WKt/nv5Hm+wbtGSC3AKh78aRL8zJxm9uqs=
=lXQX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Other related posts: