From 05aba898cedc8c2c1d9f1a21f6963e450b3f127c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Garrett D'Amore <garrett@damore.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:16:02 -0800
Subject: Move some docs to docs directory, add CONTRIBUTING and templates.

---
 RATIONALE.adoc | 316 ---------------------------------------------------------
 1 file changed, 316 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 RATIONALE.adoc

(limited to 'RATIONALE.adoc')

diff --git a/RATIONALE.adoc b/RATIONALE.adoc
deleted file mode 100644
index b4ef5468..00000000
--- a/RATIONALE.adoc
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,316 +0,0 @@
-= Rational: Or why am I bothering to rewrite nanomsg?
-Garrett D'Amore <garrett@damore.org>
-v0.2, February 22, 2018
-
-
-NOTE: You might want to review
-      http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html[Martin Sustrik's rationale]
-      for nanomsg vs. ZeroMQ.
-
-
-== Background
-
-I became involved in the
-http://www.nanomsg.org[nanomsg] community back in 2014, when
-I wrote https://github.com/go-mangos/mangos[mangos] as a pure
-http://www.golang.org[Go] implementation of the wire protocols behind
-_nanomsg_.  I did that work because I was dissatisfied with the
-http://zeromq.org[_ZeroMQ_] licensing model
-and the {cpp} baggage that came with it. I also needed something that would
-work with _Go_ on http://www.illumos.org[illumos], which at the time
-lacked support for `cgo` (so I could not just use an FFI binding.)
-
-
-At the time, it was the only alternate implementation those protocols.
-Writing _mangos_ gave me a lot of detail about the internals of _nanomsg_ and
-the SP protocols.
-
-It would not be wrong to say that one of the goals of _mangos_ was to teach
-me about _Go_.  It was my first non-trivial _Go_ project.
-
-While working with _mangos_, I wound up implementing a number of additional
-features, such as a TLS transport, the ability to bind to wild card ports,
-and the ability to determine more information about the sender of a message.
-This was incredibly useful in a number of projects.
-
-I initially looked at _nanomsg_ itself, as I wanted to add a TLS transport
-to it, and I needed to make some bug fixes (for protocol bugs for example),
-and so forth.
-
-== Lessons Learned
-
-Perhaps it might be better to state that there were a number of opportunities
-to learn from the lessons of _nanomsg_, as well as lessons we learned while
-building _nng_ itself.
-
-=== State Machine Madness
-
-What I ran into in _nanomsg_, when attempting to improve it, was a
-challenging mess of state machines. _nanomsg_ has dozens of state machines,
-many of which feed into others, such that tracking flow through the state
-machines is incredibly painful.
-
-Worse, these state machines are designed to be run from a single worker
-thread.  This means that a given socket is entirely single theaded; you
-could in theory have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of connections
-open, but they would be serviced only by a single thread.  (Admittedly
-non-blocking I/O is used to let the OS kernel calls run asynchronously
-perhaps on multiple cores, but nanomsg itself runs all socket code on
-a single worker thread.)
-
-There is another problem too -- the `inproc` code that moves messages
-between one socket and another was incredibly racy.  This is because the
-two sockets have different locks, and so dealing with the different
-contexts was tricky (and consequently buggy).  (I've since, I think, fixed
-the worst of the bugs here, but only after many hours of pulling out hair.)
-
-The state machines also make fairly linear flow really difficult to follow.
-For example, there is a state machine to read the header information.  This
-may come a byte a time, and the state machine has to add the bytes, check
-for completion, and possibly change state, even if it is just reading a
-single 32-bit word.  This is a lot more complex than most programmers are
-used to, such as `read(fd, &val, 4)`.
-
-Now to be fair, Martin Sustrik had the best intentions when he created the
-state machine model around which _nanomsg_ is built.  I do think that from
-experience this is one of the most dense and unapproachable parts of _nanomsg_,
-in spite of the fact that Martin's goal was precisely the opposite.  I
-consider this a "failed experiment" -- but hey failed experiments are the
-basis of all great science.
-
-=== Thread Challenges
-
-While _nanomsg_ is mostly internally single threaded, I decided to try to
-emulate the simple architecture of _mangos_ using system threads.  (_mangos_
-benefits greatly from _Go_'s excellent coroutine facility.)  Having been well
-and truly spoiled by _illumos_ threading (and especially _illumos_ kernel
-threads), I thought this would be a reasonable architecture.
-
-Sadly, this initial effort, while it worked, scaled incredibly poorly --
-even so-called "modern" operating systems like _macOS_ 10.12 and _Windows_ 8.1
-simply melted or failed entirely when creating any non-trivial number of
-threads.  (To me, creating 100 threads should be a no-brainer, especially if
-one limits the stack size appropriately.  I'm used to be able to create
-thousands of threads without concern.  As I said, I've been spoiled.
-If your system falls over at a mere 200 threads I consider it a toy
-implementation of threading. Unfortunately most of the mainstream operating
-systems are therefore toy implementations.)
-
-Chalk up another failed experiment.
-
-I did find another approach which is discussed further.
-
-=== File Descriptor Driven
-
-Most of the underlying I/O in _nanomsg_ is built around file descriptors,
-and it's internal usock structure, which is also state machine driven.
-This means that implementing new transports which might need something
-other than a file descriptor, is really non-trivial.  This stymied my
-first attempt to add http://www.openssl.org[OpenSSL] support to get TLS
-added -- _OpenSSL_ has it's own `struct BIO` for this stuff, and I could
-not see an easy way to convert _nanomsg_'s `usock` stuff to accomodate the
-`struct BIO`.
-
-In retrospect, _OpenSSL_ wasn't the ideal choice for an SSL/TLS library,
-and we have since chosen another (https://tls.mbed.org[mbed TLS]).
-Still, we needed an abstraction model that was better than just file
-descriptors for I/O.
-
-=== Poll
-
-In order to support use in event driven programming, asynchronous
-situations, etc. _nanomsg_ offers non-blocking I/O.  In order to make
-this work for end-users, a notification mechanism is required, and
-nanomsg, in the spirit of following POSIX, offers a notification method
-based on `poll(2)` or `select(2)`.
-
-In order for this to work, it offers up a selectable file descriptor
-for send and another one for receive.  When events occur, these are
-written to, and the user application "clears" these by reading from
-them.  (This is done on behalf of the application by _nanomsg_'s API calls.)
-
-This means that in addition to the context switch code, there are not
-fewer than 2 extra system calls executed per message sent or received, and
-on a mostly idle system as many as 3.  This means that to send a message
-from one process to another you may have to execute up to 6 extra system
-calls, beyond the 2 required to actually send and receive the message.
-
-NOTE: Its even more hideous to support this on Windows, where there is no
-      `pipe(2)` system call, so we have to cobble up a loopback TCP connection
-      just for this event notification, in addition to the system call
-      explosion.
-
-There are cases where this file descriptor logic is easier for existing
-applications to integrate into event loops (e.g. they already have a thread
-blocked in `poll()`.)
-
-But for many cases this is not necessary.  A simple callback mechanism
-would be far better, with the FDs available only as an option for code
-that needs them.  This is the approach that we have taken with _nng_.
-
-As another consequence of our approach, we do not require file descriptors
-for sockets at all, so it is possible to create applications containing
-_many_ thousands of `inproc` sockets with no files open at all.  (Obviously
-if you're going to perform real I/O to other processes or other systems,
-you're going to need to have the underlying transport file descriptors
-open, but then the only real limit should be the number of files that you
-can open on your system.  And the number of active connections you can maintain
-should ideally approach that system limit closely.)
-
-=== POSIX APIs
-
-Another of Martin's goals, which seems worthwhile at first, was the
-attempt to provide a familiar POSIX API (based upon the BSD socket API).
-As a C programmer coming from UNIX systems, this really attracted me.
-
-The problem is that the POSIX APIs are actually really horrible.  In
-particular the semantics around `cmsg` are about as arcane and painful as
-one can imagine.  Largely, this has meant that extensions to the `cmsg
-API simply have not occurred in _nanomsg_.
-
-The `cmsg` API specified by POSIX is as bad as it is because POSIX had
-requirements not to break APIs that already existed, and they needed to
-shim something that would work with existing implementations, including
-getting across a system call boundary. _nanomsg_ has never had such
-constraints.
-
-Oh, and there was that whole "design by committee" aspect.
-
-Attempting to retain low numbered "socket descriptors" had its own
-problems -- a huge source of use-after-close bugs, which made the
-use of `nn_close()` incredibly dangerous for multithreaded sockets.
-(If one thread closes and opens a new socket, other threads still using
-the old socket might wind up accessing the "new" socket without realizing
-it.)
-
-The other thing is that BSD socket APIs are super familiar to UNIX C
-programmers -- but experience with _nanomsg_ has taught us already that these
-are actually in the minority of _nanomsg_'s users.  Most of our users are
-coming to us from {cpp} (object oriented), _Java_, and _Python_ backgrounds.
-For them the BSD sockets API is frankly somewhat bizarre and alien.
-
-With _nng_, we realized that constraining ourselves to the mistakes of the
-POSIX API was hurting rather than helping. So _nng_ provides a much friendlier
-interface for getting properties associated with messages.
-
-In _nng_ we also generally try hard to avoid reusing
-an identifier until no other option exists.  This generally means most
-applications won't see socket reuse until billions of other sockets
-have been opened.  There is little chance for accidental reuse.
-
-
-== Compatibility
-
-Of course, there are a number of existing _nanomsg_ consumers "in the wild"
-already.  It is important to continue to support them.  So I decided from
-the get go to implement a "compatibility" layer, that provides the same
-API, and as much as possible the same ABI, as legacy _nanomsg_.  However,
-new features and capabilities would not necessarily be exposed to the
-the legacy API.
-
-Today _nng_ offers this.  You can relink an existing _nanomsg_ binary against
-_libnng_ instead of _libnn_, and it usually Just Works(TM).  Source
-compatibility is almost as easy, although the application code needs to be
-modified to use different header files.
-
-NOTE: I am considering changing the include file in the future so that
-it matches exactly the _nanomsg_ include path, so that only a compiler
-flag change would be needed.
-
-== Asynchronous IO
-
-As a consequence of our experience with threads being so unscalable,
-we decided to create a new underlying abstraction modeled largely on
-Windows IO completion ports.  (As bad as so many of the Windows APIs
-are, the IO completion port stuff is actually pretty nice.)  Under the
-hood in _nng_ all I/O is asynchronous, and we have `nni_aio` objects
-for each pending I/O.  These have an associated completion routine.
-
-The completion routines are _usually_ run on a separate worker thread
-(we have many such workers; in theory the number should be tuned to the
-available number of CPU cores to ensure that we never wait while a CPU
-core is available for work), but they can be run "synchronously" if
-the I/O provider knows it is safe to do so (for example the completion
-is occuring in a context where no locks are held.)
-
-The `nni_aio` structures are accessible to user applications as well, which can
-lead to much more efficient and easier to write asynchronous applications,
-and can aid integration into event-driven systems and runtimes, without
-requiring extra system calls required by the legacy _nanomsg_ approach.
-
-There is still performance tuning work to do, especially optimization for
-specific pollers like `epoll()` and `kqueue()` to address the C10K problem,
-but that work is already in progress.
-
-== Portability & Embeddability
-
-A significant goal of _nng_ is to be portable to many kinds of different
-kinds of systems, and embedded in systems that do not support POSIX or Win32
-APIs.  To that end we have a clear platform portability layer.  We do require
-that platforms supply entry points for certain networking, synchronization,
-threading, and timekeeping functions, but these are fairly straight-forward
-to implement on any reasonable 32-bit or 64-bit system, including most
-embedded operating systems.
-
-Additionally, this portability layer may be used to build other kinds of
-experiments -- for example it should be relatively straight-forward to provide
-a "platform" based on one of the various coroutine libraries such as Martin's
-http://libdill.org[libdill] or https://swtch.com/libtask/[libtask].
-
-TIP: If you want to write a coroutine-based platform, let me know!
-
-== New Transports
-
-The other, most critical, motivation behind _nng_ was to enable an easier
-creation of new transports.  In particular, one client (
-http://www.capitar.com[Capitar IT Group BV])
-contracted the creation of a http://www.zerotier.com[ZeroTier] transport for
-_nanomsg_.
-
-After beating my head against the state machines some more, I finally asked
-myself if it would not be easier just to rewrite _nanomsg_ using the model
-I had created for _mangos_.
-
-In retrospect, I'm not sure that the answer was a clear and definite yes
-in favor of _nng_, but for the other things I want to do, it has enabled a
-lot of new work.  The ZeroTier transport was created with a relatively
-modest amount of effort, in spite of being based upon a connectionless
-transport.  I do not believe I could have done this easily in the existing
-_nanomsg_.
-
-I've since added a rich TLS transport, and have implemented a WebSocket
-transport that is far more capable than that in _nanomsg_, as it can
-support TLS and sharing the TCP port across multiple _nng_ sockets (using
-the path to discriminate) or even other HTTP services.
-
-There are already plans afoot for other kinds of transports using QUIC
-or KCP or SSH, as well as a pure UDP transport.  The new _nng_ transport
-layer makes implementation of these all fairly straight-forward.
-
-== HTTP and Other services
-
-As part of implementing a real WebSocket transport, it was necessary to
-implement at least some HTTP capabilities.  Rather than just settle for a toy
-implementation, _nng_ has a very capable HTTP server and client framework. 
-The server can be used to build real web services, so it becomes possible
-for example to serve static content, REST API, and _nng_ based services
-all from the same TCP port using the same program.
-
-We've also made the WebSocket services fairly generic, which may support
-a plethora of other kinds of transports and services.
-
-There is also a portability layer -- so some common services (threading,
-timing, etc.) are provided in the _nng_ library to help make writing
-portable _nng_ applications easier.
-
-It will not surprise me if developers start finding uses for _nng_ that
-have nothing to do with Scalability Protocols.
-
-== Towards _nanomsg_ 2.0
-
-It is my intention that _nng_ ultimately replace _nanomsg_.  I do think of it
-as "nanomsg 2.0".  In fact "nng" stands for "nanomsg next generation" in
-my mind.  Some day before too long I'm hoping that the various website
-references to nanomsg my simply be updated to point at _nng_.  It is not
-clear to me whether at that time I will simply rename the existing
-code to _nanomsg_, nanomsg2, or leave it as _nng_.
-- 
cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2

