[nanomsg] Re: modular nn_device
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:39:21 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 13/06/14 09:18, Drew Crawford wrote:
> So an interesting case is a maybe-device I’ve created that I
> tentatively call ni_caching_device(). In the initial condition, it
> acts like a device, distributing the messages in the device-like
> way. But in the case that it has seen the request recently it
> responds by itself, which is a decidedly non-device-like behavior.
> But I don’t think it’s correct to call it an *application* either,
> because the idea of a caching “thing” (whatever you want to call
> it) is an application-independent idea.
That's an interesting case. You can think of it as a device that can
- -- under certain conditions -- act as a worker node itself. From that
point of view it's a regular device.
What makes it strange is that it won't work with every req/rep
topology. For example, a cluster that produces random numbers won't
benefit from caching.
Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTmqqpAAoJENTpVjxCNN9Yk0EIAJeqpF/KvDSEwsG2jq+L+SZu
WAkWu4RfpjA8lV0WB+8U9c90tf9CD/4yfjgytELVPIAfVn6ElrSiQOdZtk8KLTv/
AOqWfZgTJD2gKUZ7Cu0inNIEcZMHOhG6VRzh14wE7EccwneDtpruUbDbCPDG6OJ3
m+Utacg2pgfskUjeYWctBp0keD8P9lMIEQqVB8ag8t4BCeC34yis0Z/IORkVrjX6
HtC+ek4fgDW2UWyDI9tttza3odF93874J7WRFIvN1GklcZyESN9lxTyKN5CZdOTh
SByWvWNNC6DNXT4Jb66J6xVY8lYRi+b7K+o+svaFDQ/lsPQ1Xm+sC3gTWuMwPNQ=
=IEQT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Other related posts:
