On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 08:43, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >>I would like to have reactions on the Blocking and EventDropping issues
> >>though....
> >
> > Event dropping should be an application specific thing. However I am not
> > sure why Blocking and non-Blocking versions of interfaces need to be
> > separate. I haven't looked closely at the proposal though - will try to
> > do so real soon now ;)
>
> Yes, but should they affect the way a system is written? For instance,
> the basic operation of dequeue() doesn't change. Is it sufficient
> for the blocking timeout to be set once for the pipeline, or should it be
> set for *each* dequeue() method? Personally, I lean toward setting it
> once.
Hmmm I guess so. What I was thinking is that "void enqueue()" should either
always pass (and thus block) or throw an exception. If you wanted more
control (ie making sure it doesn't block) then you should use tryEnqueue
> SEDA:
>
> boolean success = queue.enqueue_lossy( event );
> if ( ! success )
> {
> handleFailure();
> }
>
> Avalon:
>
> boolean success = queue.tryEnqueue( event );
> if ( ! success )
> {
> handleFailure();
> }
+1
--
Cheers,
Pete
---------------------------------------
Be nice to your friends. If it weren't
for them, you'd be a complete stranger.
---------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
