I agree with Brian, proxy doesn't feel any better to me. I'm not saying device is a good name, but it argues against changing it unless the new name is better.
-Michel On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 4:53 AM, MinRK <[email protected]> wrote: > >>... but at least I can tell them to email Pieter :) > > :-) of course. > >> Yes, I would certainly do that. But deprecating names is not significantly >> less painful than simply changing them, as people still have to update their >> code in the exact same way, just not so abruptly. And they will rightfully >> complain that they are getting nothing for their trouble. > > Well, we've had this discussion a few times... my view is that it's > never too late to clear up confusing names. > > We forget the pain it took to learn 0MQ initially. Explaining it again > from scratch, it's clear where we can improve things. > > "Device" is one of those concepts that always seemed harder to learn > than it should have been. "Proxy" isn't an ideal name, but it does > seem to cover most use cases, and should be much easier to grasp for > new users. > > So what's the benefit of this change? > > My hope is that as "proxy" sticks better as a concept, people will > actually invest in the built-in proxy, as they never did in devices. > > -Pieter > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
