So you're going to **force** users to move from older platforms such as AIX or Windows XP? Good luck with that.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Harald Achitz <[email protected]> wrote: > not libzmq11 but libzmq117 targeting libzmq20 and beyond, and I mean this > seriously, > I am glad someone asks this question. > > It is not about fashion, being cool or using the latest and greatest. > If you know what modern C++ gives you, on secure and fast code, than > everything is clear to you. > If you have not learned - or see the reason - why, discussions here about > the advantage are pointless. > I know this discussion from work, and from other places. Its always the > same. > At the end, the modernized code is always better. Shorter, more clear, more > secure, less error prone > > just m2c > /Harald > > > > > > > 2017-05-18 11:55 GMT+02:00 Doron Somech <[email protected]>: >> >> I suggest porting and not rewrite, a lot of rewrite attempts failed >> before. >> Rewrite takes years to stabilize and usually users don't see the benefit >> from switching when they are happy with the current version. >> >> Who is taking the lead and forking libzmq? >> >> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Aram Santogidis >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> a good reason to modernize the codebase, or even better to create a new >>> project ala libzmq11, is to help its evolution with new networking >>> technologies and software engineering practices. >>> >>> As an example, consider the difficulties many faced (including myself) in >>> extending ZeroMQ to support RDMA-based networking interfaces. The current >>> design and implementation is hostile to such extensions. Honestly, C++98 or >>> not, I think it still can be done but with major cost in development effort >>> and additional complexity to an already complex codebase. >>> >>> Moving to C++11 and beyond is not merely an argument of fashion, as some >>> of you implied, but it is vital for its future. >>> C++ and related technologies evolve and libzmq stays behind. New >>> developers are reluctant to contribute once they have a look at the current >>> design and implementation (old school C++ roughly speaking). >>> >>> Think for example when networking will be included in the standard, how >>> much ugly code that juggles platform differences could be eliminated from >>> the current implementation. Same applies for threading, which is in the >>> standard since C++11. >>> >>> I don't underestimate the importance (and the size?) of the current >>> userbase. I'm aware from first-hand experience about some fairly critical >>> software that relies on libzmq. >>> >>> I guess the idea is to create i) a new project in the ZeroMQ organization >>> that ii) implements ZMTP and iii) the non-depricated ZMQ socket types. The >>> public API of libzmq should be a subset of the libzmq11 so that will >>> facilitate the transition of users, in the long term, that do not run on >>> legacy systems. >>> >>> I will happily contribute to such an effort provided that there will be >>> at least one or two experienced members from the community that will join >>> this effort. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Aram >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17.05.2017 16:54, BJovke . wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, you're right. There must be a good reason for such an undertaking. >>>> I too feel that C++11 itself is not good enough reason. >>>> Anyway there has to be enough people willing to contribute to it. >>>> >>>> I was just saying this because no idea should be discarded right away, >>>> but for sure there needs to be a valid need and reason for it. >>>> >>>> Greetings. >>>> >>>> 2017-05-17 16:15 GMT+02:00 Doron Somech <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>>> >>>> What will be the benefit from moving to C++11? And more important >>>> what is the benefit from having two projects? one supporting C++11 >>>> and one not? >>>> >>>> I think that maintaining two repositories is hard and not sure for >>>> what cause? >>>> >>>> Anyway, if some one want to do it, in the zeromq philosophy, please >>>> fork and add the project to the zeromq organization. >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:29 PM, <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> > On May 17, 2017, at 7:56 AM, BJovke . <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hello. >>>> > >>>> > Libzmq is not even fully C++ compliant: >>>> > - There's no exception handling. >>>> > - There are no RAII principles implemented. >>>> > - Parent/child object hierarchy is loose or not implemented, >>>> all of the burden of proper order of calls is on programmer. >>>> > >>>> > And so on... >>>> > >>>> > C++11 is really a remarkable feat of engineering and me >>>> personally like to see fully C++11 implemented software. >>>> > Unfortunately, for libzmq this would require substantial >>>> rewrite of the library. >>>> > >>>> > Maybe there's an option to create another parallel branch to >>>> existing libzmq or even create another product, for example "libzmq11"? >>>> > On the wire this could be 100% compatible with non-C++11 >>>> libzmq but there would be 0% chance to compile older projects with it. >>>> >>>> This is a good time to bring out some old blog posts. Martin >>>> Sustrik was the original developer of libzmq. He had some >>>> thoughts on why he should have written the library in C instead >>>> of C++. Here you go: >>>> >>>> http://250bpm.com/blog:4 >>>> >>>> http://250bpm.com/blog:8 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>> <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>> <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Jovan Bunjevački. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
