[nanomsg] Re: newbie question about protocol choosing
- From: Schmurfy <schmurfy@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:57:39 +0100
You are right about the protocol, there is nothing preventing it to be
implemented in another language but that part is not really that
interesting so it wouldn't be much good.
This library is really nice because of what it does above the low level
sockets and protocols used.
On 23 December 2013 23:07, Daniel Bryan <danbryan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> >
> > 2013/12/23 Jason E. Aten <j.e.aten@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > Why would you want a less-performant re-write of the library?
> > >
> > > go get github.com/op/go-nanomsg
> > >
> > > and you'll be up and going.
> >
> >
> > In some cases i can't use cgo and external binding sometimes blocks
> goroutine...
>
> Yes, pending cgo calls can't be rescheduled by the goroutine scheduler. In
> many applications, you can deal with this by setting GOMAXPROCS and
> dedicating N goroutines to take messages off a channel and make the calls
> at the cgo layer.
>
> Not knowing too much about nanomsg yet, I can't see why you couldn't
> implement the protocol natively in Go, but it seems like it would defeat
> the purpose: libraries like zeroMQ and nanomsg are great partly because of
> what they do at the low level wrt/ buffers, memory copy, latency, etc. None
> of this is a great match for a garbage collected, opaquely scheduled
> language like Go.
>
> Why can't you use cgo? Is it because you're running in GAE?
>
Other related posts:
