On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 1:12 PM Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected]> wrote: > > -------- > Dridi Boukelmoune writes: > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 10:56=E2=80=AFAM Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected].= > > dk> wrote: > > > > > > As tempted as I am to go "I have UTF-8 and I'm not afraid to use > > > it" and rename to "=C3=A9cluse", I personally see it more as some sort > > > of distribution mechanism than as a flow-control mechanism. > > > > I talked about coordination, not flow control. The principle is two > > parts of a canal operating at different levels (client vs backend) and > > the sluice coordinating the transit of boats (body bytes) from one > > level to the other. Sure that involve some amounts of flow control, > > but that's just means to an end. > > /me inhales deeply...
Yes, bikeshed requires energy. > The reason you need the sluice in the first place is because you > want to control the flow of the river with a dam :-) > > But the reason I say it looks more like a "distrbution mechanism" > is that in difference from a sluice, which has one entrace and one > exit, we have one entrance and as many exits as there are clients > streaming this object. > > If you want a precise technological prior art, it would be the > "fan-out" points in private telex networks. > > For instance a news-providers like Reuters, would have one leased > telex-circuit from London to Paris, where it would be fanned out > to Nice, Strassbourg, Bruxelles (and all the local Paris newspapers), > and from Nice to Torino, and from there to Milano and Rome etc. > forming a tree structure which a minmal (in terms of line costs) > spanning tree. > > In North America FCC made a rule that you paid AT&T the cost of the > minimal spanning tree, which is why Knuth's algorithm became so > important so fast. > > Both customers and AT&T gamed that FCC rule. > > Companies cost-optimized their nets by adding nodes they did not > need in remote hamlets like Hoople, North Dakota, because gave them > a cheaper connection from Chicago to San Francisco etc. > > AT&T on the other hand implemented the actual network the way > which made most economic sense to them, which meant that it was > anyones guess what the delay in the total network would be. > > That again got reflected in IBM's VTAM which has some very bizarre > configuration options for node timeouts and > > ... > > Sorry, we were taking about what again ? :-) > > > If you want a really weird, but precise name suggestion: "Hopper" > > That word searches horribly but try "input hopper" or "grain hopper" > and try to generalize yourself. But then we are completely out of the "stream" lexical field. If I wanted a different approximation I would have suggested something like demux or whatever. The points remain: - OC_F_BUSY has a specific role and meaning - the name busyobj aka bo is misleading, being unrelated - boc is misleading on two different levels If you want your boat to fan out, call it a quantum boat that may take any fork on the stream after passing the hyper-sluice, and only a cosmic VDP can tell when it tries to observe the boat. I'll take the direction this thread took as a no on renaming anything and a vote in favor of entertaining a comfortable confusion. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
