Thank you all for the timely feedback. For now I choose to nnpy and it
works perfect for my use case.
Thanks, Cees
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Cees,
I'm the original author and current maintainer of nnpy, so I'm probably
biased, but I can maybe provide some insight anyway.
The recommendation for nanomsg-python has been there since 2013, it was
added in this commit:
https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/commit/2b3cd1eacce0a083ce295835c1d19f
569b988777
The commit message mentions the reasoning, which is "both pynanomsg and
nnpy handle nanomsg errors using assertions and do not support python 3.x".
At least for nnpy, neither of these are still true; errors are now properly
raised as exceptions, and it has supported Python 3 for a long while now.
The third contender, pynanomsg, hasn't had any commits since 4 years ago,
which may also be something to consider.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Cees Wesseling <ceeswesseling@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi there,
nanomsg seems to be a perfect for my development requirements, so I just
started studying it.
On the documentation page there are 3 Python bindings listed, with
nanomsg-python tagged as recommended. I like to know the rationale why that
one is recommended. Second if there are any people on this list that have
experience with or researched multiple Python binding projects and their
opinion.
IMHO, I like the idea of nnpy being an autowrapper with cffi. But maybe
nanomsg-python has some advantage over simply wrapping.
Thanks, Cees
