I hope nanomsg remains simple at it's core too. You can (and people will) build these tools on top nanomsg. I think nanomsg is totally good right where it stands. Your "Directory/Naming/Discovery" or "Consensus" or "Leader-Election" etc algorithm may be not what I wanted since there are a number of ways to do these kind of things. How about companion projects ? fictitious examples: nanomsg-raft nanomsg-paxos nonomsg-zk nonomsg-etcd My $0.02 -Tim Tim Dysinger | 808-212-3231 | PGP Public Key On Sep 9, 2013, at 1:43 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/09/13 13:26, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Yes, classic feature-creep problem. >> >> I worry about this as well; the current discussion seems to have >> veered in many directions, with no good consensus emerging... Am I >> wrong? If so, can someone summarize the consensus (preferably in a new >> thread)? > > Don't worry, it's just a discussion on a rather complex topic, so it is > expected to be a bit messy. > > Btw, if you put aside all the complex stuff discussed above and look only on > what the library itself is supposed to do, it's in fact very simple: When > opened, the socket does a query and it gets back a list of nn_connects, > nn_binds and nn_setsockopts it applies to itself. > > That way the programmer can use the socket without being aware of actual IP > addresses etc. The configuration stuff is left for the admin to specify. > >> I almost feel like there should be an Enhancement Proposal process >> similar to what Python and a bunch of other projects have these days. > > Any pointers? > >>> At the moment, the idea is to have a separate address family for the >>> configuration service. >> >> Is it possible to add separate address families from outside the >> nanomsg core? If so, I think it would be preferable to develop this >> there at first, to see what works and to avoid contaminating nanomsg >> with a bunch of extra complexity during the design of the >> configuration service stuff. > > Yes, it's definitely possible. I not sure it's worth it though given that the > functionality is probably going to be something as simple as reading a config > file or doing a database query. > > Martin >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
