On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Timothy Baldridge <tbaldri...@gmail.com>wrote:
> But notice that each of these examples uses either uses multiple > channels. Or is unrecommended behavior. > > In your latter example, you're throwing parallelism out of the window. It > might work better if you had something like (go (f x)) but that then > creates an unbounded queue. Why not allow subscribers to hand a channel > instead of a function? That way your system is uniform and back-pressure > would work as expected. In addition, subscribers to could pass in buffered > or sliding-buffered channels and this would allow slower consumers to not > hold up the entire system. > I mentioned that transforming the subscriber system to subscribe channels rather than functions should be trivial, and left that and any further sophistications as exercises for the reader. :) -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
