Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Peter Donald wrote:
>
> Remember this is dequeue().
>
> The Sink side of the equation is active, and therefore a call to pop events
> off the queue would block if the timeout was set.
>
> The Source side of the equation is passive, and therefore a call to push
> events on the queue never block, but will throw an exception unless
> tryEnqueue() is called.
>
> In essence, enqueue() can assert backpressure if the queue is not emptied
> or processed quick enough. Dequeue can block until there are actual
> events to dequeue ( or there are X events to dequeue in the case of
> dequeue( X ) ).
>
> I will merge the interfaces with some of the ideas talked about today, and
> let me know if you like it better....
I committed a less cluttered queue interface, which should be cleaner
than the SEDA version, and more semantically correct. I also took your
advice regarding virtualization.
I am particularly interested if you are satisfied with the setTimeOut()
method, or if you would rather a different approach.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
