You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The differences between zmq2 and zmq3 could be effectively papered over by providing a superset of the APIs down at the ZMQ level. For example, sendmsg and recvmsg can easily be made to work on ZMQ::Socket using both underlying libraries.
Are you open to this kind of change?
Also, error reporting would be Much Nicer if either $! integration were more advanced or zmq_strerror was exposed via the base ZMQ. Or both.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Open to the idea, yes. I'd have to say I just don't know what would be the correct API names would be, because I don't trust for a second (at this moment, anyway) that send/recv or some other function name/semantics would change in libzmq4 or whatever future versions.
WRT to $!, don't know what you mean by "advanced". any pseudocode?
WRT to zmq_strerror, I guess functions like zmq_strerror/zmq_version can be exported the same way, but I guess this also falls on "what shall be the naming convention?" category. Proposals welcome.
The differences between zmq2 and zmq3 could be effectively papered over by providing a superset of the APIs down at the ZMQ level. For example, sendmsg and recvmsg can easily be made to work on ZMQ::Socket using both underlying libraries.
Are you open to this kind of change?
Also, error reporting would be Much Nicer if either $! integration were more advanced or zmq_strerror was exposed via the base ZMQ. Or both.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: