[nanomsg] Re: Moving forward

  • From: Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:15:42 -0700

> 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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx 
> > <mailto:dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx 
> > <mailto: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

Other related posts: