On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hello, > > > On 6/26/11 10:15 PM, Matthew Williams wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> Am I correct that t_continue continues processing in the process that >> calls it? If so, would it make sense for the async module to have an api for >> other asynchronous modules to hand off to its worker pool before calling >> t_continue? Or would it be better for each module to have its own pool of >> workers? >> > right now the workers in async module are dummy timers to handle async > delayed execution of next actions or specific route block. But there can be > coded a single pool of workers and timers for async processing, might be a > better solution overall. > I do think a common async worker pool would be a good solution. Otherwise, each module that implements async operations will need its own pool. What do you think, should the async module export an API function such as: int async_continue(int thash, int tlabel, void* data, int (*data_handler)(void*)); This would allow for optional data to be processed by a callback function within the context of the worker process before t_continue is actually called. Matthew Williams Flowroute LLC
_______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
