Another consideration: We now have the "idea" of a master and slave connection, and maybe something there would also help...
FWIW: I like using an empty bucket conceptually since it should be ez and quick to check. On Sep 8, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: > Wouldn't it make more sense instead of using an empty brigade to create yet > another metabucket that signals write > completion? It could also contain information how much data to send down the > chain for single filters if they e.g. send > heap or transient buckets. Otherwise how should they know? > If you have a filter that has a large file bucket set aside and it does > transform it e.g. to a heap bucket during it's > processing because it changes data on it I guess it doesn't make sense if it > does send all stuff once it gets triggered > for write completion as we would end up in a blocking write then in the core > filter. But if it knows how much is left in > the core filter buffer it could try to just sent this and avoid thus blocking > writes. And if there is no room left in > the buffer or if what is left is too small for the filter to operate on it, > the filter could just pass the bucket down > the chain and if it would end up in the core output filter, the core output > filter would just try to write what it has > buffered. > > > Regards > > Rüdiger > > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Gotcha... +1 >> On Sep 8, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: >> >>> On 08 Sep 2014, at 3:50 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> This is pretty cool... haven't played too much with it, but >>>> via inspection I like the implementation. >>>> >
