On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:i...@visualsvn.com] > > Sent: woensdag 11 november 2015 13:22 > > To: Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> > > Cc: rhuij...@apache.org; dev@serf.apache.org > > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1713489 - serf_bucket_readline() > > > > On 11 November 2015 at 01:44, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Bert Huijben [mailto:b...@qqmail.nl] > > >> Sent: dinsdag 10 november 2015 23:37 > > >> To: 'Ivan Zhakov' <i...@visualsvn.com>; rhuij...@apache.org > > >> Cc: dev@serf.apache.org > > >> Subject: RE: svn commit: r1713489 - in /serf/trunk: > > buckets/event_buckets.c > > >> outgoing.c serf_private.h > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:i...@visualsvn.com] > > >> > Sent: dinsdag 10 november 2015 20:43 > > >> > To: rhuij...@apache.org > > >> > Cc: dev@serf.apache.org > > >> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1713489 - in /serf/trunk: > > >> buckets/event_buckets.c > > >> > outgoing.c serf_private.h > > >> > > > >> > On 9 November 2015 at 20:49, <rhuij...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > Author: rhuijben > > >> > > Date: Mon Nov 9 17:49:59 2015 > > >> > > New Revision: 1713489 > > >> > > > > >> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1713489&view=rev > > >> > > Log: > > >> > > Replace the track bucket in the request writing with a tiny bit > more > > >> > > advanced event bucket that tracks both writing done and destroyed. > > The > > >> > > timings of these callbacks will allow simplifying some logic > introduced > > >> > > in r1712776. > > >> > > > > >> > > For now declare the event bucket as a private type. > > >> > > > > >> > > * buckets/event_buckets.c > > >> > > New file. > > >> > > > > >> > > * outgoing.c > > >> > > (request_writing_done): New function. > > >> > > (request_writing_finished): Tweak to implement > > >> > serf_bucket_event_callback_t. > > >> > > (write_to_connection): Add event bucket directly after the > request > > >> > bucket, > > >> > > instead of an aggregate when the writing is done. > > >> > > > > >> > Hi Bert, > > >> > > > >> > What do you think about alternative design for event buckets: make > > >> > event bucket wrap any other bucket (request bucket in our case)? I > > >> > think it will be more flexible since we could add callback to be > > >> > called before reading from wrapped bucket to track pending request. > > >> > > >> That might work, but would have different characteristics unless you > do > > >> more special things. > > > > > > There is one more problem with all this wrapping: All layers need to > > somehow support all read methods. > > > > > > Wrapping works for all methods except: readline. > > > > > How is event bucket situation different from barrier bucket for example? > > The event bucket currently doesn't forward a single read method, while the > barrier forwards all? > > > Let me reverse the question: what makes them similar? > > I think there are two classes of buckets: one that wrap other bucket(s) in > some way or another and others that don't. > > The current event bucket falls in that last category, just like the > simple, the iovec, the memmap, the file and the socket buckets (and > probably a few others). > Sure, but you could use one callback when the wrapped bucket hits EOF, and the other callback when the wrapper is destroyed. A wrapper can be more efficient, as a content bucket generally requires an aggregate bucket to attach that content to <whatever>. Cheers, -g
