[nanomsg] Re: Few Questions and Comments
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:31:23 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 21/04/14 10:51, Doron Somech wrote:
> What is the issues with ZMTP?
- - Splitting a message into multiple parts is a presentation layer
stuff and should not be tighly bound to the messaging protocol. It
should be rather one of many presentation protocols the user can
choose from.
- - ZMTP has no separation between binding to a transport protocol and
the scalability protocol itself (known as "messaging pattern" in
ZeroMQ"). The protocol is tightly bound to TCP.
- - ZMTP doesn't enforce strict separation between distinct scalability
protocols. "ROUTER" socket is an abomination by itself.
- - Identity is a pretty bad hack with no clear semantics. It was
introduced as an ad-hoc patch to solve a rather specific problem for a
paying customer and remains in the codebase and is widely misused
since then.
- - An option to use short message size (1 byte) was a speculative
optimisation early on in the ZeroMQ development, but we've never
measured any related performance gains.
Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTVPN7AAoJENTpVjxCNN9YVIsIAIaI+WY58JjSAvBuCER86Rjt
78vBNxJ9BNnvBp3y+1PiDxTt256yl2GrP5IgVeB89pn45wWX9gByL7HsHG9e8MrM
QhZsB6xqDGikJYYgvtxz47ptY5iLxbWGp/wvcDGuDMzI1QDW+umL4w++ERKJSs8Z
m+G0r8o0Lltulc/dr9jWwiQMhS+gvdjkuv1nyXAB+wSmakmihD5M5Xh3/7Ex3yIT
1RuvC4hC9JG7vTND+rW2ortumUQ3KLmHFoxt+wJAbAg1x55m2wgAX76H/lqB9sn3
c8sOZYXNajGYNRmsNb7CGmA2MFb+oY0f25eethL/aVcLWDl1ejV3tu/M6DBDJLA=
=cjCf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Other related posts:
