Re: [Caml-list] ZeroMQ vs Nanomsg

[Simon Cruanes <simon.cruanes.2007@m4x.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1566 bytes --]

Hi,

I didn't know development of nanomsg had resumed, but it's good news. I
use rgrinberg's onanomsg binding, which works fine for me (although it's
only for a small program), no memleaks, and the API is nice. I think the
bindings are quite mature and rgrinberg is very nice to interact with
;-).

Le Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Dario Teixeira a écrit :
> I'm evaluating ZeroMQ and Nanomsg for the middleware of a distributed
> application.  Now, I know both projects have had a fair share of drama
> in the past, to the point that it's hard for an outside observer to be
> up-to-date on the *current* strengths and weaknesses of each one.  Still,
> it's my understanding that though ZeroMQ is more established, Nanomsg was
> developed later by one of the original authors of ZeroMQ, and supposedly
> fixes some of the architectural mistakes of ZeroMQ.  To complicate matters,
> Nanomsg's author quit the project a while ago, leaving it in limbo for
> a while.  In the meantime, it seems development has picked up again, and
> Nanomsg recently had its 1.0 release.
> 
> Anyway, I'm sure the picture I painted above is incomplete.  Therefore,
> I would be much obliged to hear your opinions and experiences with either
> project.  I will be using the OCaml bindings, obviously, so the maturity of
> the bindings is also a factor.  (On first glance they seem quite complete
> and both offer support for LWT, which is a must.)

-- 
Simon Cruanes

http://weusepgp.info/
key 49AA62B6, fingerprint 949F EB87 8F06 59C6 D7D3  7D8D 4AC0 1D08 49AA 62B6

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]