On Mar 26, 2014, at 3:30 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Actually with these limitations, I see little use for PAIR >>> sockets. >> >> Yes. If you leave them out, nobody will be really sad, I guess. > > Actually, I had one colleague who investigated ZeroMQ for a use case > ask me about the lack of something PAIR-like. His point was mostly > that it seemed silly that ZeroMQ couldn't do the simplest thing you > could possibly want to do with sockets. He got me thinking that the > PAIR pattern is actually quite useful as a gateway drug to using more > of nanomsg, as the easiest way to replace a bare socket with nanomsg > and get some of the value of communicating in messages etc. I’m not sure what your colleague was looking at during his investigation, but zeromq has always supported PAIR. http://api.zeromq.org/3-2:zmq-socket and http://api.zeromq.org/4-0:zmq-socket That type let’s you “do the simplest thing you could possibly want to do with sockets.” cr