On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm.cat@gmail.com> wrote:

Le 09/10/2014 14:14, kilon alios a ��crit :

I am almost always right.

Good medicine�� :)

maybe ask the original author/s via github ? Why do things the hard way ;)

Yes may be I will after having looked closely at the source,
no hard way here, it's not a problem to read c or c++ code,
just a little pain (for me) to write some (I did a lot, and even liked it long time ago,
but for now, I prefer simpler�� and cleaner way - like smalltalk - to do just what I want - it's more a matter of taste).
If I use this library they won't debug my code. In smalltalk with ZnWebSocket, I could easily,
in c or c++ I could too but a bit harder - I'll have to rebuild libraries, use an external debugguer�� and so on - not a big deal
but I don't like it much.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Alain Rastoul
<alf.mmm.cat@gmail.com
<mailto:alf.mmm.cat@gmail.com>> wrote:

�� You are both right.
�� Question about nanomsg is the thread model (a big bonus of 0mq),
�� which is not clear to me.
�� they state: "...In nanomsg the objects are not tightly bound to
�� particular threads and thus these problems don't exist...", about
�� some thread related issues in 0mq.
�� I'll have to check (with sources or more docs readings) if they are
�� bound to an external thread.
�� If they account for an external thread support, this is not possible
�� with the current vm without writing some external C code (I could
�� but I would not like).
�� Le 08/10/2014 07:07, itlists@schrievkrom.de
�� <mailto:itlists@schrievkrom.de> a ��crit :

�� 0MQ is defined by its exported C interface ...

�� Am 07.10.2014 um 23:51 schrieb kilon alios:

�� nope but it is made (unlike 0mq which is made in C++)�� in C
�� so its
�� should be relative simple to wrap with NB or even TalkFFI.
�� At least the
�� parts that interest you.