[nanomsg] Re: Routing plan

  • From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:33:56 +0100

On 14/02/13 15:18, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Schmurfy<schmurfy@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
I agree that devices do not need to be part of the core, they are easy enough 
to implement on top of any bindings and would just clutter the core.

Are we talking about the function or the executables now?

I always liked included devices, because it allows me to easily use a
high-performance device in even while using a binding in a
higher-level language. And with the stricter topology, it sounds like
having devices in the core makes even more sense.

My original proposal was to have nn_device function, but not the executables.

Martin

Other related posts: