On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Philipp Heckel <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hello Vincent, > > while implementing GUI / Daemon, I would like to discuss with you the >> opportunity to hook into WatchOperation to get the following information : >> - is it running / stopped / paused ? ==> already ok via AtomicBoolean >> within WatchOperation >> - which files (name / size) are being downloaded / uploaded (UpOperation >> and DownOperation) (not possible at this stage. >> > > This is definitely necessary. The Down/UpOperation already return a few > things, among others a "ChangeSet", which is basically lists of added, > changed, and removed files. All we need to do is allow a listener in the > WatchOperation (something like WatchOperation.add/setListener(...), or even > in the constructor). and then react on it after Up/Down is complete and > returned something other than an empty list. > > Here are options I have in mind : >> 1/ try to use NotificationListener and adapt it to publish messages >> relating to currently uploaded/downloaded files (filename & size) . >> 2/ implement an eventBus (like Google Guava Event Bus >> https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/wiki/EventBusExplained) >> >> > Hm. I don't quite understand the options: > Either use existing NotificationListener and adapt ir *or* use Google EventBut ..... > > - 1: the NotificationListener's purpose is to notify other clients that > they need to perform a DownOperation -- it uses a small pub/sub server on > notify.syncany.org. > - 2: The Guava EventBus is a good option if the WatchOperation and the GUI > were running in the same JVM; it doesn't work across JVMs though, right? > We'd have to use the WebSocket messages, right? Or am I missing something > here?! > .... Only the daemon and WatchOperation need to run on the same JVM like this ? - JVM1 : (daemon + lib) ==> running WatchOperation - JVM2 : (gui) ==> running GUI only JVM1 and JVM2 comminicate through webSocket .... > > >> Is it possible to modify NotificationListener way of working to embedded >> extra information (like a Map<String, Serialisable> of params ? >> >> > Yes, this would be easily possible -- we could send larger messages. > Especially since all clients share a secret key. > > Best, > Philipp > <http://pgp.mit.edu> > -- Vincent Wiencek [email protected]
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~syncany-team Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~syncany-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
