Gordon Sim wrote:
Alan Conway wrote:
1. Remove the SYNC/ASYNC paramemter from newSession
Session s = c.newSession(SYNC) --> s = c.newSession()
2. If you want mostly-sync, then fix the async calls:
s.transfer(...) --> async(s).transfer(...)
3. If you want mostly-async then modify the newsession and fix sync
calls:
AsyncSession s = c.newSession()
s.foo(...) --> sync(s).foo
There is also a subtle impact on some of the 'utility' classes that can
be used on top of the Session API. Previously the synchronicity of
interactions from these classes would be controlled by the mode on the
session, now the behaviour is defined as part of the classes themselves.
E.g. each SubscriptionManager::subscribe() is always synchronous now,
and each message-accept sent by the dispatcher in auto-acking mode is
always asynchronous.
Agreed - I think this is an improvement as otherwise we have to document and
test both options for every class.
One other point is that setting the sync flag on a command and waiting
for it to complete is not in general the same thing as issuing an
execution-sync and waiting for that to complete. Though with the current
c++ broker both will actually have the same effect, that needn't be the
case with other brokers.
So e.g. in SubscriptionManager::setFlowControl() it would in my view be
better to use an explicit sync rather than relying on sync mode for the
last command issued.
Agreed - do you want to add it or shall I?
