5 ms·
From one of the comments on that page: "Likewise, neither 0MQ nor AMQP works on Internet scales, where RESTful principles become more important than immediate
by z8000 17y ago
From one of the comments on that page:
"Likewise, neither 0MQ nor AMQP works on Internet
scales, where RESTful principles become more important than immediate performance."
I don't follow this logic. Can someone help me understand why 0MQ would not be appropriate at "Internet scales" (and I presume "should" be relegated to LANs)?
I ask because (1) it looks great for a general transport at any "scale" and (2) the article itself discusses a scenario in which 0MQ could be used over a WAN (branch offices, the forwarder, etc.).
What am I missing?
- Nwallins 17y agoI think what he is saying is that a general internet "service" is better off providing a higher-level REST interface instead of a 0MQ interface.
- z8000 17y agoOK, I suppose the keyword there is "general". In that context I cannot argue with the idea.
- z8000 17y agoI found this too: "Yup. Seen that one [UDT]. However, AFAIU, it focuses on moving large messages over high-latency high-volume links. 0MQ is focused on short messages on low-latency high-volume links." http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2009-August/001186.html http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2009-August/001...