On 3/6/13 8:27 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
On 03/06/2013 10:09 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
On 03/06/2013 08:30 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
- Original Message -
> From: "Rafael Schloming"
> To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 2:27:19 PM
> Subject: Re: put vs. send
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> >
> > On 03/06/2013 10:09 AM, Raf
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Michael Goulish wrote:
> >
> > I think this is actually quite helpful for the ongoing API
> > discussions. One
> > of the tricky things about developing a simple API is that everyone
> > has
> > their own scenario that they want to be simple, and sometimes making
>
- Original Message -
> I like this.
Good! I'm trying to get at the intention, as I understood it from
online discussions, and make a doc that makes the intention easy
to see.
> I don't think this is the same thing as high level
> conceptual
> intro, but may well be more useful ri
I like this. I don't think this is the same thing as high level conceptual
intro, but may well be more useful right now, and it will always be very
useful as recipe book style documentation.
I think this is actually quite helpful for the ongoing API discussions. One
of the tricky things about deve
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> On 03/06/2013 10:09 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>>
>> On 03/06/2013 08:30 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
This is exactly ri
OK, I'm trying here to express the spirit of Messenger I/O ,
greatly based on the conversation of the last 24 hrs.
This probably needs some elaboration yet, but I want to
see if I'm at least generally on the right track.
Oh, please, give me feedback.
Sending and Receiving Messages
=
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Ken Giusti wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Ted Ross"
> > To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:35:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: put vs. send
> >
> >
> > On 03/
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Michael Goulish wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Ted Ross"
> > > To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:35:
- Original Message -
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Ted Ross"
> > To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:35:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: put vs. send
> >
> >
> > On 03/06/2013 10:09 AM,
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 03/06/2013 08:30 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
T
- Original Message -
> From: "Ted Ross"
> To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:35:47 AM
> Subject: Re: put vs. send
>
>
> On 03/06/2013 10:09 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Ted Ross w
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>
>>
>> On 03/06/2013 08:30 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>>>
>>> This is exactly right. The API behaves in a surprising way and cause
On 03/06/2013 10:09 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
On 03/06/2013 08:30 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
This is exactly right. The API behaves in a surprising way and causes
reasonable programmers
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> On 03/06/2013 08:30 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>>
>> This is exactly right. The API behaves in a surprising way and causes
>>> reasonable programmers to write programs that don't work. For
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> >
> > Whether that's reported as an error is really a choice of the bindings.
> In
> > C it's all just return codes. We could add a separate non-blocking flag
> > that causes the blocking operations to return distinct error codes, i.e.
> > the
On 03/06/2013 08:30 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
This is exactly right. The API behaves in a surprising way and causes
reasonable programmers to write programs that don't work. For the sake of
adoption, we should fix this, not merely document it
>
> Whether that's reported as an error is really a choice of the bindings. In
> C it's all just return codes. We could add a separate non-blocking flag
> that causes the blocking operations to return distinct error codes, i.e.
> the equivalent of EWOULDBLOCK, but I don't think this makes a whole l
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> On 6 March 2013 13:26, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rob Godfrey
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5 March 2013 21:10, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
> >>
> >> [.. snip ..]
>
On 6 March 2013 13:26, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> On 5 March 2013 21:10, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>>
>> [.. snip ..]
>>
>> >
>> > It isn't really possible to have "put" cause messages to
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
> This is exactly right. The API behaves in a surprising way and causes
> reasonable programmers to write programs that don't work. For the sake of
> adoption, we should fix this, not merely document it.
This seems like a bit of a leap to me. Hav
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> On 5 March 2013 21:10, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> [.. snip ..]
>
> >
> > It isn't really possible to have "put" cause messages to be eventually
> sent
> > without a background thread, some
Hah!
I think I get it!
Your comments about asynchronicity were the key.
Rewriting now.
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Michael Goulish
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Rafael Schloming
> > >
> > > wr
On 03/06/2013 04:44 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
On 5 March 2013 21:10, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Ted Ross 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
On 5 March 2013 21:10, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Ted Ross 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
On 3/5/13 8:52 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
On 03/05/2013 02:01 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Michael Goulish
wrote:
So, am I understanding correctly? -- I should be able to get messages
from my sender to my re
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Michael Goulish wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Rafael Schloming
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Rajith Attapattu
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
> > >> >
>
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Michael Goulish wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 03/05/2013 02:01 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Michael Goulish
> > >> > >> >wrote:
> > >>
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Rafael Schloming
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Rajith Attapattu
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 03/05/2013 02:14 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
>> >
>> > On 03/05/2013 02:14 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is a good explanation that we need to put in the
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> >
> > On 03/05/2013 02:01 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Michael Goulish
> >> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> So, am I understanding correctly? -- I should be able to get
> >>>
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
> >
> > On 03/05/2013 02:14 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> This is a good explanation that we need to put in the docs, as
> >> Application developers certainly need to know how i
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> On 03/05/2013 02:14 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a good explanation that we need to put in the docs, as
>> Application developers certainly need to know how it behaves.
>> If one were to use the current C impl, it certainly gives
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> On 03/05/2013 02:01 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Michael Goulish > >wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So, am I understanding correctly? -- I should be able to get messages
>>> from my sender to my receiver just by calling pu
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> On 03/05/2013 02:14 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is a good explanation that we need to put in the docs, as
>> Application developers certainly need to know how it behaves.
>> If one were to use the current C impl, it certainly gives
On 03/05/2013 02:14 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
This is a good explanation that we need to put in the docs, as
Application developers certainly need to know how it behaves.
If one were to use the current C impl, it certainly gives the
impression that put() is meant to write messages into your i
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Michael Goulish wrote:
>
>>
>> quoth Rafi:
>>
>> > The semantics of pn_messenger_put allow it to send if it can do so
>> without
>> > blocking.
>>
>>
>> So, am I understanding correctly? -- I should be able
On 03/05/2013 02:01 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Michael Goulish wrote:
So, am I understanding correctly? -- I should be able to get messages
from my sender to my receiver just by calling put() -- if the receiver
is ready to receive?
Not necessarily, the rece
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Michael Goulish wrote:
>
> quoth Rafi:
>
> > The semantics of pn_messenger_put allow it to send if it can do so
> without
> > blocking.
>
>
> So, am I understanding correctly? -- I should be able to get messages
> from my sender to my receiver just by calling put()
39 matches
Mail list logo