> On Jan. 28, 2015, 8:58 p.m., Alan Conway wrote:
> >

Oops, meant to say "Ship It"


- Alan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30318/#review70080
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 28, 2015, 6 p.m., Gordon Sim wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30318/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 28, 2015, 6 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for qpid and Rafael Schloming.
> 
> 
> Repository: qpid-proton-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Sending a message requires several steps: create a delivery with a unique 
> tag, encode the message, cal send(), call advance. While this gives a lot of 
> flexibility and power (e.g. streaming messages in chunks without ever holding 
> the entire thing in memory), for many, many use cases, a simpler solution 
> would be adequate and would avoid users having to learn what is in my view 
> one of the more esoteric aspects of the API.
> 
> The attached patch adds send support for a Message object, such that a 
> message can be sent with a single call. It also allows the send() method to 
> be 'dual purpose'. It remains backwards compatible as a way of appending 
> bytes to the current delivery, but can also be used as a one-step call to 
> send a single message.
> 
> At present the engine examples in python make use of a similar 
> simplification, but one that is added dynamiccaly and is therefore less clean 
> and obvious. It currently also doesn't work as well for sending on links 
> established by the remote peer. This addition would in my view allow for 
> simpler use where needed, without breaking any existing usage.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   proton-c/bindings/python/proton/__init__.py 17cef30 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30318/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gordon Sim
> 
>

Reply via email to