On 26/10/2017 11:25 AM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On 10/25/17 23:57, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2017-10-26 00:53, Adam Wilson wrote:
This of course makes the assumption that we clean-room our own
protocol implementations which I am entirely against. Better to use
what already exists.
I'm entirely against anything that is not compatible with vibe.d ;)
My apologies, something rather the other direction. Instead of forcing
compat with vibe.d, going to vibe.d and say: "here is our standard
event-loop, it has everything you need, you'll need to use it for all
the other goodness to work". I know others can make good arguments about
why the vibe event-loop is insufficient, and I'll let them make them.
(Something about not supporting GUI loops, paging Mr. Cattermole). If
that is really the case I don't see how being entirely vibe.d compatible
and meeting the universal standard requirements of Phobos is possible.
There would need to be a requirements gathering phase so that the
community as a whole can bring their use-cases before we dove into code.
The problem isn't the event loop design.
Its a fairly solved problem.
The way vibe.d's works is very specific to their use case (which isn't
wrong if you only consider them). You can't 'hook' into it. Which makes
it very undesirable for Phobos. Since it won't cover most use cases.
Even if the source they are using is compatible with an external GUI
event loop (which it should be for Windows from what I've read).
So I wouldn't be starting with vibe.d's event loop model. Quite to the
contrary, kill it. Build something that will last throughout the ages
for everyone and put this problem to rest.
