[nanomsg] Re: Status
- From: Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:19:21 -0800
On March 4, 2014 at 8:01:26 AM, Martin Sustrik (sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
Maybe I have been over-cautious with the version numbering. If people
generally feel OK with moving to 1.0, it can be done on the next
release.
There is value in asserting stability.
I’d be most concerned if we thought this stuff was really alpha. One of the
folks I was working with on nanomsg expressed concern over the 0.2 number… and
yet clearly this is more well baked than other “1.0” items on the ‘net.
So calling this 1.0 will *probably* lead to wider adoption.
The other thing is *interface* stability, where interfaces are not just
API/ABI, but also *protocol* level details. The protocol asserts version 0
(despite the RFC indicating version 1).
Having another independent implementation of the protocols (not just via
foreign function interface) will help us be more “sure” here, and I’m working
towards that end. It may be a bit longer, yet, but I hope to have a “pure Go”
version of the SP protocols available…. these wil support all the same
transports that the C version does. (inproc will be done using go channels.)
The other thing I’m thinking of is the possibility of offering a websocket
transport. This would offer several useful benefits — HTTPS and support for
traversing firewalls and proxies.
- Garrett
Other related posts:
