qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: C++ sync/async client API (was Re: sync needed in fanout example?)
Date Thu, 29 May 2008 14:59:03 GMT
Gordon Sim wrote:
> Alan Conway wrote:
>> Gordon Sim wrote:
>>> One other point is that setting the sync flag on a command and 
>>> waiting for it to complete is not in general the same thing as 
>>> issuing an execution-sync and waiting for that to complete. Though 
>>> with the current c++ broker both will actually have the same effect, 
>>> that needn't be the case with other brokers.
>>>
>>> So e.g. in SubscriptionManager::setFlowControl() it would in my view 
>>> be better to use an explicit sync rather than relying on sync mode 
>>> for the last command issued.
>>
>> Done, also added a flush() to sync() so that sync ensures we are 
>> up-to-date in both directions.
> 
> The impl->sendFlush() causes a flush request to be sent, not completion 
> status, and seems redundant to me.
> 
> If we want to ensure that updates are sent in both directions then we 
> should use impl->sendCompletion(). Out of curiousity, is there a 
> specific reason for doing that?
> 
temporary insanity.

Mime
View raw message