[nanomsg] Re: stackable protocols
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Drew Crawford <drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 07:45:24 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 13/05/14 07:10, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> I don’t think the nanomsg does a very good job of extensibility —
> it can be done, but its not terribly elegant, and the state machine
> model imposed on both protocols and transports makes adding a new
> one of either of those somewhat onerous.
Yes.
It's mostly a fault of the implementation language, though. (Btw, if
you have any idea how to make it nicer, by all means, do propose it!)
I am playing with code generation now to find out whether it would be
possible to get rid of all the bolier-plate code, but no promises so far.
Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTcbFzAAoJENTpVjxCNN9YdDYH/R9qDGIGzBJ0fGnMfiGKTPhJ
gMT6FsuJLFIFfAj0CJCgPJhQSyFcVMD/dNVE2GBK+8S/sM2VCSlYWJCdIRD6DCyy
+WJvfOXdrSXnzcK0nWXJg6WF1lo4KyTnlEWL6NdP8juFJOL4AeGNirGS34aIzOt2
RUmG7YL2OkIY/rsfqZJp3WKNNTgLqDnopLtIC1cvUCin1NABy6/4j3SpTExGdGkB
cir9IoG1xgvC3TeGA9iUW4ljr4Qbp43laJkww2UU69FvGleIdzbQ2HQTeX8M47oo
VrTaeRxbuWi3xb8Zxv007i+y/7VdzQglO0UHspd4Bxv33IgvJhr638bjBAIpiho=
=e90e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Other related posts:
