[nanomsg] Re: different protocols, parameters

  • From: Paul Colomiets <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:02:15 +0200

Hi Martin,

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Looks like long-polling a/k/a COMET. Please don't introduce this
>> kind of crap into nanomsg. It's used by browsers, because there is
>> not always a way to use websockets. But that's a different story.
>
> I would say it's just a new transport. We should not care. If people
> want a long-polling HTTP transport, so be it. Shrug.
>

Ah, let me say so: I would be ok with HTTP transport if somebody
would do it fully functional. But I'm strongly opposed to adding
a transport that only works for few cases. And I believe nobody
will spend so much time to make HTTP transport work well for
all nanomsg protocols :)

So still I believe, that having separate "gateway" process
(like zerogw, mongrel2, zurl and many others do for zeromq),
would work better for protocols that do not match nanomsg
semantics well.

-- 
Paul

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. nanomsg
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2014