You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
ZeroMQ imposes specific framing on a transport and therefore requires further detail added to the address to differentiate it from a standard transport. For example: /ip4/127.0.0.1/tcp/3000 describes how to reach a server but if that server is running a 0MQ socket on it, standard tcp applications will not be able to communicate therefore an extension will be needed to adequately describe it: /ip4/127.0.0.1/tcp/3000/0mq
There are a lot of protocols (like #106) that require additional information added to the address, perhaps a multiaddr code that describes a generic protocol could be useful. For example: /ip4/127.0.0.1/tcp/3000/protocol/0mq This would allow developers to use multiaddr without requiring custom additions directly to the table. However this would only solve protocols that don't require a value since the protocol name becomes that value part - I think #70 might be more along the lines of that.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
ZeroMQ imposes specific framing on a transport and therefore requires further detail added to the address to differentiate it from a standard transport. For example: /ip4/127.0.0.1/tcp/3000 describes how to reach a server but if that server is running a 0MQ socket on it, standard tcp applications will not be able to communicate therefore an extension will be needed to adequately describe it: /ip4/127.0.0.1/tcp/3000/0mq
There are a lot of protocols (like #106) that require additional information added to the address, perhaps a multiaddr code that describes a generic protocol could be useful. For example: /ip4/127.0.0.1/tcp/3000/protocol/0mq This would allow developers to use multiaddr without requiring custom additions directly to the table. However this would only solve protocols that don't require a value since the protocol name becomes that value part - I think #70 might be more along the lines of that.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: