> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:i...@visualsvn.com]
> Sent: woensdag 11 november 2015 13:22
> To: Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl>
> Cc: rhuij...@apache.org; dev@serf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1713489 - serf_bucket_readline()
>
> On 11 November 2015 at 01:44, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bert Huijben [mailto:b...@qqmail.nl]
> >> Sent: dinsdag 10 november 2015 23:37
> >> To: 'Ivan Zhakov' <i...@visualsvn.com>; rhuij...@apache.org
> >> Cc: dev@serf.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: svn commit: r1713489 - in /serf/trunk:
> buckets/event_buckets.c
> >> outgoing.c serf_private.h
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:i...@visualsvn.com]
> >> > Sent: dinsdag 10 november 2015 20:43
> >> > To: rhuij...@apache.org
> >> > Cc: dev@serf.apache.org
> >> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1713489 - in /serf/trunk:
> >> buckets/event_buckets.c
> >> > outgoing.c serf_private.h
> >> >
> >> > On 9 November 2015 at 20:49, <rhuij...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > > Author: rhuijben
> >> > > Date: Mon Nov 9 17:49:59 2015
> >> > > New Revision: 1713489
> >> > >
> >> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1713489&view=rev
> >> > > Log:
> >> > > Replace the track bucket in the request writing with a tiny bit more
> >> > > advanced event bucket that tracks both writing done and destroyed.
> The
> >> > > timings of these callbacks will allow simplifying some logic introduced
> >> > > in r1712776.
> >> > >
> >> > > For now declare the event bucket as a private type.
> >> > >
> >> > > * buckets/event_buckets.c
> >> > > New file.
> >> > >
> >> > > * outgoing.c
> >> > > (request_writing_done): New function.
> >> > > (request_writing_finished): Tweak to implement
> >> > serf_bucket_event_callback_t.
> >> > > (write_to_connection): Add event bucket directly after the request
> >> > bucket,
> >> > > instead of an aggregate when the writing is done.
> >> > >
> >> > Hi Bert,
> >> >
> >> > What do you think about alternative design for event buckets: make
> >> > event bucket wrap any other bucket (request bucket in our case)? I
> >> > think it will be more flexible since we could add callback to be
> >> > called before reading from wrapped bucket to track pending request.
> >>
> >> That might work, but would have different characteristics unless you do
> >> more special things.
> >
> > There is one more problem with all this wrapping: All layers need to
> somehow support all read methods.
> >
> > Wrapping works for all methods except: readline.
> >
> How is event bucket situation different from barrier bucket for example?
The event bucket currently doesn't forward a single read method, while the
barrier forwards all?
Let me reverse the question: what makes them similar?
I think there are two classes of buckets: one that wrap other bucket(s) in some
way or another and others that don't.
The current event bucket falls in that last category, just like the simple, the
iovec, the memmap, the file and the socket buckets (and probably a few others).
Bert
