[nanomsg] Re: status on pull request 369 - websocket changes

  • From: Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:26:08 +0100

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I’ve got an outstanding pull request — #369 — that fixes some issues with 
> websocket and as a result mangos websocket would be compatible with nanomsg.  
> These include changes to the RFC, as well as fixes in the code.
>
> I would *really* like to see that integrated, rather than stagnating.  The 
> original author of the websocket transport has already given it his thumbs 
> up.  What else is required to see this move forward?

The reason I didn't merge it was (but I should probably have made this
explicit) because I was a little concerned about the handshake
discussion that happened on the mailing list. IIRC, Drew Crawford
expressed a dissenting opinion on how it should work, but I've been
too busy to go back and dig it up.

> I’m concerned that the process for figuring out what gets accepted, and what 
> doesn’t, is too opaque.  In particular, I’m going to be making another round 
> of changes — I need to fix the Surveyor protocol to use a backtrace just as 
> Martin had discussed earlier — this will include RFC updates and code changes.

For things that Martin already agreed to, I'm happy to merge them.
I'll also merge stuff that is an obvious bug fix or that other
community members agree on (as expressed before, I think). Sorry, I do
not feel confident enough to make sort of high-level decisions on
Martin's behalf.

> Yet I’m concerned — Martin seems to be  busy as we’ve hardly heard from him 
> of late, and the project seems to be running somewhat rudderless.  That makes 
> it a somewhat scary proposition for companies like mine that are planning on 
> using this stuff in production.  My fear is that nanomsg itself will stagnant 
> due to lack of developer involvement.  It would be really really unfortunate 
> for libnanomsg to become abandonware.

I very much agree. I wrote to Martin a few weeks ago to ask him when
he would be able to spend more time on nanomsg. He said that he was
moving to a different country for a new job, where he wasn't
comfortable using work infra to do nanomsg stuff. He said he would be
able to spend some time on nanomsg from this week on, but obviously
that hasn't happened yet. I do hope he will find more time to review
stuff once he's a bit more settled in. I also asked him if we should
appoint more people who can actually merge pull requests -- I think
you would make a good candidate for this.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Other related posts: