On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 March 2013 21:10, Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Ted Ross <tr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > [.. snip ..] > > > > > It isn't really possible to have "put" cause messages to be eventually > sent > > without a background thread, something we don't currently have. > > I think it's this that is what makes me find the API slightly odd. > That put is an asynchronous operation is fine, but the fact that the > only way to get work to occur is for a synchronous operation to be > called seems a little screwy. > > If I understand correctly, right now an application programmer cannot > actually write an "asynchronous publisher", every so often they would > have to call some form of synchronous operation. > > At the very least it would seem to suggest there might be call for a > "do some work but don't block" function in the API. This could either > take an aggressive strategy of flushing everything that it can to the > wire, or it could attempt to optimize into larger transmission units. This is exactly what happens when you set the timeout to zero and call send (or recv). Are you saying you want some other way of doing the same thing or you want a background thread? --Rafael
