From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4FE47EF5E for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:59:14 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:8NdMQBLZd8h4HFAHj9mcpTZWNBhigK39O0sv0rFitYgUL/3xwZ3uMQTl6Ol3ixeRBMOAuqoC17ad6fGocFdDyK7JiGoFfp1IWk1NouQttCtkPvS4D1bmJuXhdS0wEZcKflZk+3amLRodQ56mNBXsq3G/pQQfBg/4fVIsYL+kQsiO04/thqibwN76W01wnj2zYLd/fl2djD76kY0ou7ZkMbs70RDTo3FFKKx8zGJsIk+PzV6nvp/jtM0rzyMFsPsk84tEUL7mN/AzRLlcSTAnKHwd5cvxtBCFQxHZtVUGVWBDvhNSAg+N0Bz7TprwqCKy4uZ0wiide9H7TKA5WC6rx6FvRQ70hSFBPDk8pjKEwvdshb5W9Ury7yd0xJTZNdmY Authentication-Results: mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=dario.teixeira@nleyten.com; spf=None smtp.mailfrom=dario.teixeira@nleyten.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@relay3-d.mail.gandi.net Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of dario.teixeira@nleyten.com) identity=pra; client-ip=217.70.183.195; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com"; x-sender="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of dario.teixeira@nleyten.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=217.70.183.195; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com"; x-sender="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@relay3-d.mail.gandi.net) identity=helo; client-ip=217.70.183.195; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com"; x-sender="postmaster@relay3-d.mail.gandi.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DvAABRwYhXh8O3RtldhRa6Z4dPOxEBAQEBAQEBAREBAQEIDQkJIS+CMhWCVAJTgSobiCyhSp5LhiqOaAWZIYFejHaPPJAZAjSBWgwBVYFYh1x/AQEB X-IPAS-Result: A0DvAABRwYhXh8O3RtldhRa6Z4dPOxEBAQEBAQEBAREBAQEIDQkJIS+CMhWCVAJTgSobiCyhSp5LhiqOaAWZIYFejHaPPJAZAjSBWgwBVYFYh1x/AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,368,1464645600"; d="scan'208";a="184909520" Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jul 2016 12:59:14 +0200 Received: from mfilter22-d.gandi.net (mfilter22-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.150]) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9320EA80DB for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:59:13 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter22-d.gandi.net Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.195]) by mfilter22-d.gandi.net (mfilter22-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KjKrRjdb0u-n for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:59:12 +0200 (CEST) X-Originating-IP: 10.58.1.141 Received: from webmail.gandi.net (webmail1-d.mgt.gandi.net [10.58.1.141]) (Authenticated sender: dario.teixeira@nleyten.com) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 22493A80F6 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:59:12 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:59:12 +0100 From: Dario Teixeira To: caml-list Message-ID: <9ab1f1de347c6531e51d0757e140a49c@nleyten.com> X-Sender: dario.teixeira@nleyten.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.2 Subject: [Caml-list] ZeroMQ vs Nanomsg Hi, 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.) Thanks in advance for your time! Kind regards, Dario Teixeira