zmq 3.1 about em-zeromq HOT 9 CLOSED

@andrewc, any opinion on this ?

from em-zeromq.

Hi schmurfy, unfortunately, I pretty much just don't have the time to maintain this gem anymore.

I no longer actively use it, so I'm looking for a new maintainer.

You're at the top of my list for a candidate, your thoughts?

from em-zeromq.

I was not using it until now but will soon use it on a real project ^^
so I can take care of it sure !

from em-zeromq.

@deepfryed if you plan to use the gem what is your opinion on this ?

I will use 3.1 and so I plan to focus my work on 3.1 to avoid wasting resources on keeping 2.1 compatibility (3.1 is really close to becoming the new stable version anyway)

from em-zeromq.

A few things have changed between 2.1 & 3.1 but I think you can maintain both in a clean fashion.

1. abstract out the common logic
2. define the version specific parts as mixins - since they define the version specific behaviour.
3. allow the user to load em-zeromq/version2.1 or em-zeromq/version3.1

I do intend to keep using 2.1 in the immediate future since its been very stable thus far.

from em-zeromq.

3.1 changes are:

• some getsockopt/setsockopt were added, other were removed and other changed name
• some functions changed name/signature

3 is not necessary we can switch on the fly like ffi-rzmq does depending on the version returned by the C api

from em-zeromq.

Hi schmurfy

I'm running into zeromq 2.x / 3.x problems. I am trying out em-zeromq for the first time. Maybe I can be of some help fixing and testing this. FWIW my current production target is Windows Server 2008 with RubyInstaller Ruby 1.9.3-p194

from em-zeromq.

I am not currently using it in production but in testing em-zeromq works well with zeromq 2.x but I did not do extensive testing with 3.x.
What sort of problems are you running into ?

from em-zeromq.

closing this since it is now outdated.

from em-zeromq.