On March 18, 2015 7:34:47 PM CDT, Alexander Williams <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi Garrett, > >I've written one of the ffi bindings for nanomsg (picolisp) and had a >good chance to review and work with the C code. Thought I'd chime in here. I have an interest in distributed computing, messaging, etc, and have been watching and learning at a distance. >From what I've seen on the list, you seem to care quite a bit about >this library. I don't see why you need anyone's permission to fork it >and do as you wish (review/merge other people's PRs, etc). Ditto here. In my opinion, you seem like a de facto maintainer, anyway. I "second the motion" not that you need my nor anyone else's permission to do so. Just do it! Beg forgiveness later. In the spirit of open source. >In fact, I think that's the spirit of open source. Rather than >continually requesting Martin's participation, why don't you just do >it? At this point you've more than proven your ability and interest in >moving this project forward, and i'll gladly work with (test&review) an >implemention that is maintained/supported over one that's not. Again, ditto, echo same. I believe there are seasons in life where paths cross but few paths indeed are that parallel for that long. This is especially exemplified through the open source phenomenon. >As a side note, I personally have no interest in Go, threads, pthreads, >or TLS support (unnecessary overhead in a closed network of nanomsg >nodes), so I wouldnt be using Mangos or any of those features you plan >to implement in a forked version. If I were to choose a messaging framework, yes, indeed, threading is non-trivial, yet necessary thing to want to contend with. I don't know that much about TLS, or necessarily need or want Go. I'd be more inclined to want a solid .NET or even C++ or Python binding. But only because I know those stacks much better. Would be interesting to adapt a pure C++1y nanomsg(++), if you will. Neither here nor there for your aims. >This is my personal view on the whole thing. You can continue >discussing about it as you wish, but if you care so much then i'd >rather you just take the lead and send us the link when it's ready ;) Blaze that trail my friend. I get it, though, having delved into some open source stacks myself, you want to make as informed a decision as you can. ... >Finally, if you decide to fork and improve things on your own, keeping >backwards compatibility with Nanomsg in its current state, then you >also introduce the ability to be merged back in. That wouldn't be such >a bad thing. Which, in my mind, at any rate, is much to do with the deliberation. Every fork in the road risks not turning back. For some things the reward may justify the risk. Like if you're talking about a niche library, api, or what have you. Something as fundamental as infrastructure, communications, not so much, in my opinion. Totally get it. I mean, you don't have to read too far into the original motivating, mitigating (?), factors that were behind nano's conception to find that. >Thanks for your hard work! Indeed, echoed. If I'm in the market needing communications advice, I know of at least one forum expert I can ask. >AW Best of luck and may God bless! MP >On 2015-03-19, at 9:15 AM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>> On Mar 18, 2015, at 4:44 PM, Isam Habbab <isam.habbab@xxxxxxxxx> >wrote: >>> >>> I apologize at the outset, I am a newcomer to nanomsg and I am >thinking of using it in my applications as a messaging enabler in a >C/C++ financial application. I have been reading the freelists emails >and I would greatly appreciate it if someone helps me understand the >background to the issues and where things stand now. If anyone would >like to do that privately without cluttering up the group chats please >email me at isam.habbab@xxxxxxxxx (thanks a lot) >> >> The technology, while not perfect, is probably a good fit for this >use. You of course need to assess it for yourself, of course. It is >far less mature, but greatly simpler, than zeromq. >> >> As far as the community — lots of people using this stuff, although >its still nothing like zeromq in adoption. There are fewer >contributors, though there are some. Unfortunately, the creator of the >project, Martin, has been mostly absentee for the past several months, >which has left the project without a lot of leadership. Hopefully this >is just a temporary hurdle. >> >> - Garrett >> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Garrett D'Amore ><garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> > On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx> >wrote: >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Garrett D'Amore ><garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >> a) Martin suddenly renews his interest and activity in the >project, and reasserts control and leadership. >>>> >> >>>> >> b) The community (working with Martin’s consent), appoints some >additional leadership, who can be called upon to provide technical >leadership to keep the project moving forward. (Indeed, I think this >is similar to what happened with ØMQ.) >>>> >> >>>> >> c) A new fork is started from nanomsg. >>>> > >>>> > I'd like to see (b) happen, where we start by adding you as an >>>> > additional maintainer for the current nanomsg project (though >that >>>> > would be quite different from how I experienced what happened >with >>>> > 0MQ). If that somehow doesn't happen, I'd certainly consider >using >>>> > your fork for any future projects where I need something >nanomsg-like. >>>> >>>> Well, I’m agreeable if we can get Martin engaged. If not, then I >think we need to fork. >>>> >>>> - Garrett >> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.