[nanomsg] Re: The monitoring for nanomsg
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:43:01 +0200
On 05/09/13 17:43, Paul Colomiets wrote:
Hi,
Basically from what discussed in the IRC:
1. Using nanomsg protocol for the data is OK
Yes, but let's also have a look at alternatives. Is there anything
standard and widely-used for this kind of thing? If so, we can integrate
with existing tools.
2. The application name is got from the environment, e.g. NN_PROCESS_NAME=foo
Yes, but it should be optional. It's useful where actual command line is
ugly and/or non-descriptive. In other cases using command line as
process name by default should work OK IMO.
3. Socket names should (probably) be devised from topology IDs. For
that to work the long awaited feature of nn_connect(sock,
"topology://topology-name") should be implemented first. Details for
the name service will be discussed in the separate thread.
Yes. This one is not clear. We'll have to do some experimenting to see
what kind of socket identifiers would be appropriate.
Martin
Other related posts:
