I also prefer #2. Chris
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 11:31:03AM -0700, will sanfilippo wrote: > My vote would be #2 as well. > > > > On May 6, 2016, at 11:29 AM, marko kiiskila <ma...@runtime.io> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > >> On May 5, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Sterling Hughes <sterl...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Salutations, > >> > >> As I've been going through the callout implementation, one thing I've > >> noticed is that callouts and callout_funcs can't be interleaved. > >> > >> The implementation of a callout, is that it has an event as the first > >> element of the structure. When that event is posted to an event queue, it > >> is posted with the event type EVENT_T_TIMER, which is reserved for > >> callouts. However, you must know a priori what type of callout it is, a > >> callout, or a callout_func. > >> > >> I don't think this behavior is ideal, and there are a couple of options > >> for fixing it: > >> > >> 1- Break out EVENT_T_TIMER into EVENT_T_TIMER (callout) and > >> EVENT_T_TIMER_FUNC (callout_func). > >> > >> 2- Remove the concept of callout, and just have callout_func. callout_func > >> is by far the more useful of the two. > >> > >> 3- Add a flags field to callout, which will tell you whether its a callout > >> or a callout_func. > >> > >> I'm leaning towards either #2 or #3 here, because I think the first one > >> will end up being confusing when debugging things. "Oh no, I put TIMER > >> instead of TIMER_FUNC. GRR." My personal preference is #2, but I'm not > >> sure everyone wants to be forced to have a function per-timer in their > >> task context. > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > I would prefer #2, as that would simplify the concept. > > > > Also, while you have that file cracked open, cf_arg from within > > os_callout_func could be removed. > > os_callout includes os_event, and that structure already has a void * which > > could be used as callout_func > > argument. > > — > > M >
