Described separately and badly. What sense does it make to talk about
nsv_set without nsv_get? In which man page do you describe the config
setting for nsvbuckets, or do you repeat it on all of them?
You have a chance to make it nice and come up with some way to combine
them and make cross-
On 10/7/06, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oh, and how do we handle man pages which document more than one
>> command, such as ns_cache or nsv? It looks like when you refer to a
>> command within a man page source, it auto links to a man page by the
>> same name. But the ns_cache_ev
Oh, and how do we handle man pages which document more than one
command, such as ns_cache or nsv? It looks like when you refer to a
command within a man page source, it auto links to a man page by the
same name. But the ns_cache_eval command should be described in the
ns_cache.man page, so the li
On 10/6/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06.10.2006, at 23:41, Stephen Deasey wrote:
>
> What's the goal? We can certainly abstract socket event IO, with
> poll() as a fallback. But some of the interfaces you mentioned here
> can handle waiting on other things, e.g. signals.
On 10/6/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06.10.2006, at 23:12, Stephen Deasey wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On 03.10.2006, at 01:01, Stephen Deasey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I was also wondering about the ns_proxy send/wait/receive. Why are
>
On 06.10.2006, at 23:41, Stephen Deasey wrote:
What's the goal? We can certainly abstract socket event IO, with
poll() as a fallback. But some of the interfaces you mentioned here
can handle waiting on other things, e.g. signals. Is this what you
want?
At the moment only as replacement for
On 06.10.2006, at 23:25, Stephen Deasey wrote:
I was wondering, do we need to rename the source man pages or move
them into their own directories according to the section they belong
to? At the moment we just have section n, Tcl commands. But we need
section 3 for the C API.
doc/man/n
doc/m
On 06.10.2006, at 23:12, Stephen Deasey wrote:
On 10/4/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 03.10.2006, at 01:01, Stephen Deasey wrote:
I was also wondering about the ns_proxy send/wait/receive. Why are
wait and receive separate commands?
Because you can wait, get the time
On 9/25/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unix is not Unix as I see...
Please note this (interesting) document:
http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/event_completion.html
Mostly interesting, as there is now a very powerful and scalable
notification interface on both Sola
On 9/24/06, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here it is the doctools generated html files from source manpages.
http://www.crystalballinc.com/vlad/nsdocs/toc.html
doctool does all auto-referencing, so to make it pretty we just need CSS
style.
make build-doc
calls dtplite and produces
On 10/4/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 03.10.2006, at 01:01, Stephen Deasey wrote:
>
>
> I was also wondering about the ns_proxy send/wait/receive. Why are
> wait and receive separate commands?
Because you can wait, get the timeout, do something and then go repeat
waiting.
On 06.10.2006, at 22:53, Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
OK. So far I can go. I could imagine an API without explicit
handle usage. I can't however imagine scratching them (handles)
altogether.
What I mean by that is that the API should be able to
allow both types of usage.
On 06.10.2006, at 22:32, Stephen Deasey wrote:
Or, maybe you need a special pool for special threads, and a default
pool for generic threads. If there are only a couple of special
threads then the pool can be small -- you don't need to size the pool
according to the many generic threads just t
On 10/6/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06.10.2006, at 22:21, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
> I vote for ns_exec and putting it into the core
OK. Couple of simple thoughts agout that:
ns_exec ?-pool poolname? script ?arg ...?
is nice and short. It uses the default pool
(as Steph
On 10/6/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
etc ? Or ns_slave?
ns_slave eval arg
ns_slave config thepool option ?value option value ...?
Hm... that's not bad. What do you think?
I think ns_slave would be "opportune". The people will of course
immediately ask: where is ns_ma
On 06.10.2006, at 22:21, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
I vote for ns_exec and putting it into the core
OK. Couple of simple thoughts agout that:
ns_exec ?-pool poolname? script ?arg ...?
is nice and short. It uses the default pool
(as Stephen is advocating).
But... how would we create pools, conf
On 10/6/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06.10.2006, at 21:25, Stephen Deasey wrote:
>
> But what I'm wondering is, why you need to do this with proxy slaves?
> It seems like they don't have the same state problem that a series of
> database statements do.
>
> It's possible to
I vote for ns_exec and putting it into the core
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
On 06.10.2006, at 21:25, Stephen Deasey wrote:
But what I'm wondering is, why you need to do this with proxy slaves?
It seems like they don't have the same state problem that a series of
database statements do.
It's possi
On 06.10.2006, at 21:25, Stephen Deasey wrote:
But what I'm wondering is, why you need to do this with proxy slaves?
It seems like they don't have the same state problem that a series of
database statements do.
It's possible to send multiple Tcl commands to a single proxy slave at
the same
On 10/4/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To summarize. What you object is:
a. handle management (should work without handles)
b. name of the module (should not be proxy)
c. invent default pool
d. ?
For a:
I understand the syntactical need, but this is how I see that
I am not using it so i have nothing to add to existing API.
As for the name, maybe ns_process or ns_exec ?
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
On 04.10.2006, at 10:03, Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
To summarize. What you object is:
a. handle management (should work without handles)
b. name of the module
On 04.10.2006, at 10:03, Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
To summarize. What you object is:
a. handle management (should work without handles)
b. name of the module (should not be proxy)
c. invent default pool
d. ?
For a:
I understand the syntactical need, but this is how I see that from
22 matches
Mail list logo
