Re: Fwd: put vs. send

m: Rafael Schlomingmailto:r...@alum.mit.edu>> Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM Subject: Re: put vs. send To: Bozo Dragojevicmailto:bo...@digiverse.si>> [snip] Thank you for taking the time to explain, that's very helpful. It makes me wonder if we shou

Re: put vs. send

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:

Re: put vs. send

- 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

Re: Fwd: put vs. send

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Bozo Dragojevic wrote: > On 3/6/13 3:45 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > >> Oops, meant to send this to the list. >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Rafael Schloming >> Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM >

Re: put vs. send -- new doc

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 >

Re: put vs. send -- new doc

- 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

Re: put vs. send -- new doc

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

Re: Fwd: put vs. send

On 3/6/13 3:45 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote: Oops, meant to send this to the list. -- Forwarded message -- From: Rafael Schloming Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM Subject: Re: put vs. send To: Bozo Dragojevic On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Bozo Dragojevic wrote: Wow, by not

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send -- new doc

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 =

Re: put vs. send

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/

Re: put vs. send

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:

Re: put vs. send

- 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,

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

- 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

Re: put vs. send

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

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 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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

> > 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

Re: put vs. send

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 ..] >

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Fwd: put vs. send

Oops, meant to send this to the list. -- Forwarded message -- From: Rafael Schloming Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM Subject: Re: put vs. send To: Bozo Dragojevic On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Bozo Dragojevic wrote: > Wow, by not ever calling pn_messenger_send(),

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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: > > >> > >

Re: put vs. send

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: > > >>

Re: put vs. send

- 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: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

- 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 > >>>

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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

Re: put vs. send

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()

put vs. send

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() -- if the receiver is ready to receive? The only transmission differe