[Bro-Dev] 0MQ security considerations

[Gilbert Clark]

On 7/8/2011 9:22 AM, Robin Sommer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 19:04 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> First, though, I thought I'd look around for a library that does
>> something like that.  If I can't find one, then it'll be time to build
>> one.
> I forgot the obvious one yesterday: Intel's TBB. That's what the
> multi-core Bro prototype is already using, and it's main thread
> abstraction is (almost?) compatible to C++0x. I could live that
> dependency. And it has lock-free data structures as well. I think
> that's actually the best option I see right now.

Looks interesting, but one thing from the FAQ that bothers me:

"I write software of <a particular nature>.  Is TBB use appropriate for me?

It depends on what your application profile is. TBB does not try to 
replace I/O threads or GUI threads or general Win Threads. TBB is best 
for computational tasks that are not prone to frequent waiting for I/O 
or events in order to proceed (this is an area the TBB team does want to 
tackle later). "

Also, the license (GPLv2 with a linking exception) is probably 
sub-optimal.  It could definitely be worse, though (read: bdb and 
Sleepycat).

> But somebody has maintain the code that's *using* Boost

Well, sure.  That's true of any library, though, so I'm not sure I 
really understand this argument :)

> ... My main
> concern is actually that once we have Boost, folks will immediately
> start using pretty much any feature it provides. :-)

Okay, I'll bite :)

I like the accepted answer here: 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1226206/is-there-a-reason-to-not-use-boost

As long as we kept our design focused, I think we'd be fine.

--Gilbert