On 10.09.2012 16:51, Nick Mathewson wrote: > Having new *connect_hostname commands is making me think that maybe > this should be an abstract method of bufferevent that only some > bufferevent subtypes support.
Yes, the whole "lookup-and-start-connecting" part should be refactored to a common method. > I'd like a better distinction between functions that should be called > by the implementation, and functions that exist to be called by the > users of this type. Right now I am pretty sure which are which, but > only pretty sure. How would you like to separate this? Would a dedicated prefix/suffix for methods to be used by the implementation work? > It could be cool to have a way to version the API. I see, we could add a field to the "bufferevent_indirect_callbacks" that specifies the version number or a bitmask of the available features. > I'm also with Mark Ellzey in that I'd like to see a quick example of > how this would get used (that is to say, a little example module). Here is a quick-hacked pseudo-code example of how this could be used: https://gist.github.com/3691934 Joachim *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@freehaven.net with unsubscribe libevent-users in the body.