On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 14:36 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
> ...
> > >
> 1. which event loop are you injecting into. I think once we have
> connections in more than one thread we'll need to inject into a
> specific connection, not just into the container. Something like
>
I've thought about it a bit more and my thinking has changed a little
bit from this:
I think the inject operation needs to operate on the actual object with
which it needs to be serialised. So minimally the inject should act on
the connection (not the container):
class connection {
...
void inject(std::function<void(connection&)>);
...
}
Note that the function also passes in the connection - this is not 100%
necessary, but it seems to me that it is so likely to be needed that
leaving it off is pointless, again std::bind can be used to add any
other necessary context.
I'd also be in favour of having inject operations on session, sender &
receiver for convenience too - but I think these could be wrappers over
the basic connection::inject.
Incidentally I think that this would be the best model for timed events
too.
The logic for this is that the API user knows which object's context he
wants to inject events into and stating this clearly (instead of having
to use a proxy like the container or something related to the event
loop) is just more error prone.
This does strongly imply that the connection does need to know about
the actual event loop implementation though so it can forward the
injection to the correct driver - this in turn means that there would
need to be a common SPI interface at this level for injecting events.
Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
