Diego Giagio wrote: >> I have not looked at it deeply, but I would do something >> like.. where there was a cherokee_connection_send() call, do: >>
[.. code ..] >> >> What do you think? In this way, we can keep the socket class >> independent of the bandwidth throttling thing. >> > > That's a nice approach. The only downside I can think of is repeating > that piece of code every place a *_send or *_recv function is called. > > Let me try explain a bit better what I was talking about. The wrapper > functions i proposed wouldn't be created on the socket class, but on the > connection class (connection.c) and they would be static. I mean, eg. > instead of writing: > > ret = cherokee_write (cnt->socket, buf->buf, buf->len, &written); > > We would write: > > ret = conn_write_buf (cnt, buf, written); > > The function conn_write_buf, would: > > - Check the throttler > - Call cherokee_write > - Update the traffic counter (cherokee_connection_tx_add) > - Update the throttler [.. code ..] > What do you think about it ? Good stuff! I completely agree.. :-) -- Greetings, alo. _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://www.alobbs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
