On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:18 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:27 PM Han Zhou wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:22 AM Han Zhou wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. storage data and the void *arg of init() breaks the engine node data
> > > encapsulation.
> > > 2.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:27 PM Han Zhou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:22 AM Han Zhou wrote:
> >
> > 1. storage data and the void *arg of init() breaks the engine node data
> > encapsulation.
> > 2. engine_node_valid(_flow_output, engine_run_id) is not needed? Should
> > use storage
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:22 AM Han Zhou wrote:
>
> 1. storage data and the void *arg of init() breaks the engine node data
encapsulation.
> 2. engine_node_valid(_flow_output, engine_run_id) is not needed?
Should use storage to access instead?
> 3. refactor of engine is good but better to be a
1. storage data and the void *arg of init() breaks the engine node data
encapsulation.
2. engine_node_valid(_flow_output, engine_run_id) is not needed? Should
use storage to access instead?
3. refactor of engine is good but better to be a separate commit
4. we can have a new interface:
The incremental processing engine might stop a run before the
en_runtime_data node is processed. In such cases the ed_runtime_data
fields might contain pointers to already deleted SB records. For
example, if a port binding corresponding to a patch port is removed from
the SB database and the
