I'm happy that you guys like the idea and are willing to contribute.
I see two separate issues from the remarks made so far.
1) Fork and modernize current codebase or write from scratch.
2) Update libzmq or create a new ZeroMQ project under a different name.
The point 1) has to do with the technical aspects of the undertaking.
The point 2) is related to ZeroMQ project managemnt/policy matters.
Doron, I like your suggestion about forking instead of starting from
scratch. What would be your position on point 2)?
For me this is the sticking point and it is not obvious which option is
best.
If changes will be committed back to libzmq then compatibility will be
broken for legacy systems from a certain version and beyond. The
alternative option of creating a new project potentially leads to
(community) resource fragmentation and "branding" issues.
Regarding C++11,14... well I think the question at hand is not which
exact version of C++ should be adopted but rather if the project will
follow the evolution of the language and related technologies, with
whatever "phase" difference serves best the community.
PS: Does anybody know how big is the usergroup that runs ZeroMQ on
Windows XP and such? Not even Microsoft support XP anymore.
Cheers,
Aram
On 19.05.2017 15:21, BJovke . wrote:
I have a feeling that C++14 and C++17 are just improvements of C++11.
C++11 is the game changer, 14 and 17 don't bring ground breaking stuff.
I would be also happy to contribute to C++11 libzmq but I'm not sure how
much stuff I can do.
I'm currently not familiar with inner workings of libzmq enough detailed
to be confident to rewrite it, although I'm reading the docs and code
day by day.
My time to spend is questionable, sometimes I have a lot of time and
sometimes I cannot contribute for days or even weeks.
There are also many aspects of libzmq which make it hard to adopt the
code, instead requiring complete rewrite:
2017-05-18 20:29 GMT+02:00 Jens Auer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi,
I would be happy to contribute to such a project, even if many users
will stay with the "old" code. For me, it is a great way to learn
something. I would also be happy to aim for C++14 or even C++17 once
it is officially released. I think structured bindings and the new
if (init; condition) will be very helpful. C++17 also has
std::optional.
Cheers,
Jens
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: zeromq-dev [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] Im Auftrag von Aram
Santogidis
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Mai 2017 10:57
An: ZeroMQ development list
Betreff: Re: [zeromq-dev] Porting libzmq to C++11
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]>
> <mailto:[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]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
wrote:
>
>
> > On May 17, 2017, at 7:56 AM, BJovke . <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
<https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>
> <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]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
<https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>
> <https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
<https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jovan Bunjevački.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
_______________________________________________
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
