[bug-myserver] Re: [Fwd: Re: something to play with]

[Alexandru IANCU]

On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 23:29 +0200, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Actually it is used there to don't suffer I/O bound operations in the
> scheduler, at least in the part that can be executed only by a thread at
> a time.

But how this can happen? When scheduler calls addReadyConnection there
is always data pending to be read on that socket.
Anyway, we also have a recv call with time out.

> Which advantages will we have to move it away from there?

When I proposed to move it from there I was thinking at 2 issues:
1. notifications - I'm not sure how to handle them: centralized per
socket or per stream ID. If we'll handle notifications per stream ID
there is no need to move recv call from ClientsThread. 
2. incomplete messages
I may receive incomplete messages. How to tell if on the next read I'll
have a message for this stream ID or for another that needs to be
handled by another ClientsThread.

Andu.

> 
> Giuseppe
> 
> 
> Alexandru IANCU <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I would remove recv call from ClientsThread. ClientsThread read from a
> > buffer and write to a socket(sockets write only to ClientsThread). This
> > pair should be provided by scheduler.
> >
> > Andu.