On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:34:37PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > I think the key here is to document what happens, so if the library > opens a connection and pools it, this should be explained in the > docs.
Sure.. If we do that, would it make sense to export rrdc_disconnect to the other language bindings? In case a long-lived process knew it would not need the socket cached. Most of my applications will benefit from the cached connection, but there may be some that don't. (Also note, I am not proposing that we cache more than a single socket... No "pool", per se). > Not sure how this is applicable here, but an idea I have been toying > with recently is that the application could throttle itself based on how > long it takes to send a block of data to the target without throttling > and then starts backing of from this a little. So whenever the system is > not able to keep up, the sender will automatically throttle itself a > little more. Either way, I think this is an internal implementation detail that we can add later... no effect on API. -- kevin brintnall =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
