Skip to content

Document new ZeroMQ transport operators#256

Open
tobim wants to merge 2 commits intotopic/new-executorfrom
topic/neo-zmq
Open

Document new ZeroMQ transport operators#256
tobim wants to merge 2 commits intotopic/new-executorfrom
topic/neo-zmq

Conversation

@tobim
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@tobim tobim commented Apr 8, 2026

🔍 Problem

  • The docs only describe load_zmq and save_zmq, which models the old byte-oriented API.
  • The upcoming executor work introduces event-oriented ZeroMQ operators with separate connect and bind modes.
  • The old docs also overstate the role of monitor on the read side.

🛠️ Solution

  • Add reference pages for from_zmq, accept_zmq, to_zmq, and serve_zmq.
  • Update the ZeroMQ integration page to describe the new executor operators.
  • Keep load_zmq and save_zmq documented as the legacy-executor path instead of marking them deprecated.
  • Document prefix as the PUB/SUB routing primitive and scope monitor to the publishing side.

💬 Review

  • Check whether the documented split between connect and bind matches the intended TQL surface.
  • Check whether encoding on write and nested read_* pipelines on read are described precisely enough.
  • Check that the rollout wording does not imply load_zmq and save_zmq are deprecated before the new executor becomes the default.

Functional PRs

@github-actions github-actions Bot added reference Reference documentation integration Integration documentation labels Apr 8, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented Apr 8, 2026

📦 Preview  ·  View →  ·  🟢 Live

Auto-updates on push

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@mavam mavam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well done!

Use the IP address `0.0.0.0` to listen on all available network interfaces.

The event-oriented ZeroMQ operators are:
The new executor provides event-oriented ZeroMQ operators:
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@mavam mavam Apr 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"new executor" should not be mentioned in the primary docs. Rather, we should have an explicit migration guide that transitioning users will ultimately resort to.

Otherwise you have to do a content pass in another month to rephrase all of this again.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

integration Integration documentation reference Reference documentation

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants