| [Time] Name | Message |
|
[00:42] Guthur
|
umm, is there some reason why streamer and forwarder are identical
|
|
[00:42] Guthur
|
just to remind the user to use the appropriate end point types?
|
|
[10:24] Guthur
|
Is it just me or are the z_msg decode and encode functions miss-named?
|
|
[10:25] Guthur
|
encode to me seems like it should be taking a string and encoding it and decode taking a byte stream and returning the string
|
|
[10:25] mato
|
sustrik: are you there?
|
|
[10:26] Guthur
|
not to mention that the comment block is the same for each function which just adds to the confusion
|
|
[10:27] mato
|
Guthur: raise an issue somewhere (issue tracker? zmq ML) with Pieter Hintjens, ZFL is his project
|
|
[10:27] Guthur
|
it's part of the guide as well
|
|
[10:27] mato
|
that's his project too :-)
|
|
[10:27] Guthur
|
hehe, ok
|
|
[10:27] mato
|
I would have preferred that the guide use plain ZMQ and not push any other layers, but it's up to Pieter...
|
|
[10:28] mato
|
I suggest you take that up with him, on the ZMQ mailing list
|
|
[10:28] Guthur
|
Most of the guide is plain ZMQ to be fair
|
|
[10:28] Guthur
|
it's just the last advanced example section
|
|
[10:28] Guthur
|
which is fair enough IMHO
|
|
[10:29] Guthur
|
Even then it doesn't use anything that is not shown in the example
|
|
[10:29] Guthur
|
ZFL is not required as far as I am aware
|
|
[10:29] Guthur
|
though I have not actually completed the last few examples
|
|
[10:30] Guthur
|
I personally think the guide is a great introduction to ZMQ
|
|
[10:37] Guthur
|
There could be more examples from the bindings though.
|
|
[10:37] Guthur
|
I think Java is probably quite a glaring omission, considering how popular it is
|
|
[10:45] keffo
|
I like the new site, much better!
|
|
[14:25] keffo
|
./local_thr.exe tcp://127.0.0.1:1234 10000 10000
|
|
[14:25] keffo
|
Your average throughput is 28732 [msg/s]
|
|
[14:25] keffo
|
Your average throughput is 2298 [Mb/s]
|
|
[14:25] keffo
|
vrom vrom
|
|
[14:28] keffo
|
10 byte msg size: Your average throughput is 3179966 [msg/s]
|
|
[14:28] keffo
|
Your average throughput is 254 [Mb/s]
|
|
[16:00] Guthur
|
keffo...
|
|
[16:00] Guthur
|
Your average throughput is 28854 [msg/s]
|
|
[16:00] Guthur
|
Your average throughput is 2308 [Mb/s]
|
|
[16:00] Guthur
|
that's the CLR binding
|
|
[16:00] Guthur
|
though totally meaningless of course, hehe
|
|
[16:12] keffo
|
it is yeah
|
|
[16:12] keffo
|
meaningless?
|
|
[16:16] Guthur
|
yep
|
|
[16:17] Guthur
|
I should run C version though
|
|
[16:17] keffo
|
this was debug build in an ubuntu VM
|
|
[16:17] Guthur
|
I am personally interested in comparing the performance of the clrzmq binding
|
|
[16:17] keffo
|
it was the clr binding
|
|
[16:17] Guthur
|
yep
|
|
[16:18] keffo
|
oh you mean the fact that it's a binding rather than pure C that is meaningless? Yeah, I agree
|
|
[16:18] Guthur
|
umm nope not really, I meant comparing mine to your figures
|
|
[16:18] keffo
|
(debug/release was equally meaningless)
|
|
[16:19] Guthur
|
different computers obviously to not make for a good comparison
|
|
[16:19] Guthur
|
to/do
|
|
[16:20] Guthur
|
it would be nice to see if there was much overhead in going through the CLR interop
|
|
[16:21] Guthur
|
Wouldn't make me want to develop a significantly complex application in C even if there was but it would be nice to knpw
|
|
[16:21] Guthur
|
know*
|
|
[16:24] keffo
|
probably insignificant
|
