I like D) stream.writev([ {chunk:buf, encoding: blerg}, ...], callback)
The leveldb driver has a very similar batch api (
https://github.com/rvagg/node-levelup#batch )
the leveldb driver also has a large thread about possible better APIs (
https://github.com/rvagg/node-levelup/issues/45 ) from which some
inspiration may be drawn.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:27 PM, tjholowaychuk <[email protected]>wrote:
> +1 C / D, D would be less awkward as far as building up the things
> you're passing to .writev() goes, but the arrays are alright. Less
> fancy stuff in core++
>
> On Apr 22, 5:01 pm, Isaac Schlueter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > There's a syscall called `writev` that lets you write an array (ie,
> > "Vector") of buffers of data rather than a single buffer.
> >
> > I'd like to support something like this for Streams in Node, mostly
> > because it will allow us to save a lot of TCP write() calls, without
> > having to copy data around, especially for chunked encoding writes.
> > (We write a lot of tiny buffers for HTTP, it's kind of a nightmare,
> > actually.)
> >
> > Fedor Indutny has already done basically all of the legwork to
> > implement this. Where we're stuck is the API surface, and here are
> > some options. Node is not a democracy, but your vote counts anyway,
> > especially if it's a really good vote with some really good argument
> > behind it :)
> >
> > Goals:
> > 1. Make http more good.
> > 2. Don't break existing streams.
> > 3. Don't make things hard.
> > 4. Don't be un-node-ish
> >
> > For all of these, batched writes will only be available if the
> > Writable stream implements a `_writev()` method. No _writev, no
> > batched writes. Any bulk writes will just be passed to _write(chunk,
> > encoding, callback) one at a time in the order received.
> >
> > In all cases, any queued writes will be passed to _writev if that
> > function is implemented, even if they're just backed up from a slow
> > connection.
> >
> > Ideas:
> >
> > A) stream.bulk(function() { stream.write('hello');
> > stream.write('world'); stream.end('!\n') })
> >
> > Any writes done in the function passed to `stream.bulk()` will be
> > batched into a single writev.
> >
> > Upside:
> > - Easier to not fuck up and stay frozen forever. There is basically
> > zero chance that you'll leave the stream in a corked state. (Same
> > reason why domain.run() is better than enter()/exit().)
> >
> > Downsides:
> > - easier to fuck up and not actually batch things. eg,
> > s.bulk(function(){setTimeout(...)})
> > - bulk is a weird name. "batch" maybe? Nothing else really seems
> > appropriate either.
> > - somewhat inflexible, since all writes have to be done in the same
> > function call
> >
> > B) stream.cork(); stream.write('hello'); stream.write('world');
> > stream.end('!\n'); stream.uncork();
> >
> > Any writes done while corked will be flushed to _writev() when uncorked.
> >
> > Upside:
> > - Easy to implement
> > - Strictly more flexible than stream.bulk(writer). (Can trivially
> > implement a bulk function using cork/uncork)
> > - Useful for cases outside of writev (like corking a http request
> > until the connection is established)
> >
> > Downsides:
> > - Easy to fuck up and stay corked forever.
> > - Two functions instead of just one (double the surface area increase)
> >
> > C) stream.writev([chunks,...], [encodings,...], callback)
> >
> > That is, implement a first-class top-level function called writev()
> > which you can call with an array of chunks and an array of encodings.
> >
> > Upside:
> > - No unnecessary surface area increase
> > - NOW IT'S YOUR PROBLEM, NOT MINE, HAHA! (Seriously, though, it's
> > less magical, simpler stream.Writable implementation, etc.)
> >
> > Downside:
> > - A little bit tricky when you don't already have a list of chunks to
> > send. (For example, with cork, you could write a bunch of stuff into
> > it, and then uncork all at the end, and do one writev, even if it took
> > a few ms to get it all.)
> > - parallel arrays, ew.
> >
> > D) stream.writev([ {chunk:buf, encoding: blerg}, ...], callback)
> >
> > That is, same as C, but with an array of {chunk,encoding} objects
> > instead of the parallel arrays.
> >
> > Same +/- as C, except the parallel array bit. This is probably how
> > we'd call the implementation's stream._writev() anyway, so it'd be a
> > bit simpler.
> >
> > Which of these seems like it makes the most sense to you?
> >
> > Is there another approach that you'd like to see here? (Note: "save
> > all writes until end of tick always" and "copy into one big buffer"
> > approaches are not feasible for obvious performance reasons.)
>
> --
> --
> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
> Posting guidelines:
> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "nodejs" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "nodejs" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
--
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"nodejs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
