3 ms·

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying. The 0MQ manual is (indeed) excellent, but it seems like a design whitepaper. It essentially describ

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying. The 0MQ manual is (indeed) excellent, but it seems like a design whitepaper. It essentially describes what are known as the scalability protocols. As you say, it's independent of the implementation, i.e.: the library. My confusion largely stems from a presentation I watched [0] in which it was implied that 0MQ suffered from a few design issues, and had therefore been forked. It seems like the library was rewritten in the meantime, however, so perhaps these points are no longer relevant. I suppose I'm looking for a bit of clarity as to why the fork occurred in the first place.

ocschwar 10y ago
That fork was long enough ago that those issues are moot.
to3m 10y ago
http://hintjens.com/blog:117#toc4 http://hintjens.com/blog:117#toc4 ``For ZeroMQ, our stated mission was "Fastest. Messaging. Ever." This is a nice, and nearly impossible answer to a problem we could all agree on: namely, the slow, bloated technology available at that time. However, my co-founder Martin and I had conflicting goals. He wanted to build the best software possible, while I wanted to build the largest community possible. As the user base grew, his dramatic changes, which broke existing applications, caused increasing pain. ``In that case, we were able to make everyone happy (Martin went off to build a new library called "Nano").''