librelist archives

ZeroMQ 3.1.x Support

From:

Josh Simmons

Date:

2012-01-31 @ 12:01

Hey guys,

I've thrown up a quick branch to get mongrel2 building and testing
against the latest zeromq beta version. There don't seem to be any
nasty looking changes but it'd be nice if some more people could test
it. Although 3.0.x was not backwards compatible with the 2.1.x wire
format, these changes have been reverted in 3.1.x so theoretically
everything will play nice.

https://github.com/zedshaw/mongrel2/tree/feature/zmq3

Cheers,
Josh

Hey Josh, and word on how stable ZMQ 3.x is?  What's the major advantage
of switching?

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:01:17PM +1100, Josh Simmons wrote:
> Hey guys,
> 
> I've thrown up a quick branch to get mongrel2 building and testing
> against the latest zeromq beta version. There don't seem to be any
> nasty looking changes but it'd be nice if some more people could test
> it. Although 3.0.x was not backwards compatible with the 2.1.x wire
> format, these changes have been reverted in 3.1.x so theoretically
> everything will play nice.
> 
> https://github.com/zedshaw/mongrel2/tree/feature/zmq3
> 
> Cheers,
> Josh

-- 
Zed A. Shaw
http://zedshaw.com/

All,

Pieter Hintjens mentioned on twitter that they'll be pushing 3.1 towards 
stable now and it should take a couple of months. Check the conversation: 
https://twitter.com/#!/hintjens/status/166660388233027585

All the best,
Eimantas Vaiciunas

On Feb 8, 2012, at 4:08 AM, Zed A. Shaw wrote:

> Hey Josh, and word on how stable ZMQ 3.x is?  What's the major advantage
> of switching?
> 
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:01:17PM +1100, Josh Simmons wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>> 
>> I've thrown up a quick branch to get mongrel2 building and testing
>> against the latest zeromq beta version. There don't seem to be any
>> nasty looking changes but it'd be nice if some more people could test
>> it. Although 3.0.x was not backwards compatible with the 2.1.x wire
>> format, these changes have been reverted in 3.1.x so theoretically
>> everything will play nice.
>> 
>> https://github.com/zedshaw/mongrel2/tree/feature/zmq3
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Josh
> 
> -- 
> Zed A. Shaw
> http://zedshaw.com/

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Zed A. Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote:
> Hey Josh, and word on how stable ZMQ 3.x is?  What's the major advantage
> of switching?
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:01:17PM +1100, Josh Simmons wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I've thrown up a quick branch to get mongrel2 building and testing
>> against the latest zeromq beta version. There don't seem to be any
>> nasty looking changes but it'd be nice if some more people could test
>> it. Although 3.0.x was not backwards compatible with the 2.1.x wire
>> format, these changes have been reverted in 3.1.x so theoretically
>> everything will play nice.
>>
>> https://github.com/zedshaw/mongrel2/tree/feature/zmq3
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Josh
>
> --
> Zed A. Shaw
> http://zedshaw.com/

The major advantage in 3.x is subscription forwarding so data gets
filtered based on subscriptions at the sending side rather than the
receiving side potentially saving a lot of bandwidth. This won't
affect most mongrel2 apps I don't think, but might benefit some. There
are a few other smaller changes too, like HWM being split into
separate values for send and receive and also noted are bug fixes and
the removal of at least one assertion possibility (low OS limit on
socketpair buffer size). It should now be wire compatible with zmq 2.x
as well.

That all said it's still a beta of a new major version with breaking
API changes and I don't see any of the features being truly game
changing for mongrel2 so I don't see any reason to merge support into
master yet. Purely experimental support based on a whim of mine.

Cheers,
Josh

Hello,

> I've thrown up a quick branch to get mongrel2 building and testing
> against the latest zeromq beta version. There don't seem to be any
> nasty looking changes but it'd be nice if some more people could test
> it. Although 3.0.x was not backwards compatible with the 2.1.x wire
> format, these changes have been reverted in 3.1.x so theoretically
> everything will play nice.

Does it mean that normally a 2.1.x end point should be able to
communicate with a 3.1.x end point? If so, this is great, it will allow
me to nicely migrate from one version to another without the need to
pull the plug massively.

loïc

On Jan 31, 2012 11:59 PM, "Loic d'Anterroches" <loic@ceondo.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> > I've thrown up a quick branch to get mongrel2 building and testing
> > against the latest zeromq beta version. There don't seem to be any
> > nasty looking changes but it'd be nice if some more people could test
> > it. Although 3.0.x was not backwards compatible with the 2.1.x wire
> > format, these changes have been reverted in 3.1.x so theoretically
> > everything will play nice.
>
> Does it mean that normally a 2.1.x end point should be able to
> communicate with a 3.1.x end point? If so, this is great, it will allow
> me to nicely migrate from one version to another without the need to
> pull the plug massively.
>
> loïc

Yeah, that's the theory anyway.