[nanomsg] Language binding vs custom network protocol implementation
- From: Mingfai <mingfai.ma@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:37:41 +0800
hi,
for pub-sub and push-pull, probably the other as well, the
wire/transportation/network protocol of NanoMsg is quite simple,
apparently, the first conversation to establish the protocol/pattern, then
sending message is all about a 8-byte header/length and then payload. Every
port can bind for only one protocol.
given the network protocol is simple, what kind of advantage we can get
from using a language binding in compare to just implement the network
protocol?
My case is using Java, and Java has very mature async network libraries,
e.g. Netty, that allow me to implement a subscriber, or maintains the
channels of inbound connections as publisher, easily. On the other hand,
the two bindings are relatively immature and harder to use.
One step backward, the reason I wound want to use NanoMsg (at least it's
protocol) is to avoid design my protocol to use defined patterns, and allow
interoperability with non-Java platform.
So I basically want to figure out what kind of magic the C binding does. :-)
thanks,
mingfai
Other related posts:
