[nanomsg] Re: backtrace headers implemented for survey/respondent protocol
- From: Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 07:29:36 -0700
Ping? Any chance anyone is going to have time to code review this for me?
- Garrett
> On Mar 10, 2015, at 11:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I’ve implemented the backtrace support to fix surveyor, as we’ve discussed
> here before. It is now possible to use multiple surveyors with a respondent,
> using this code. (And as a result of doing this work, I can see why Drew is
> concerned about the performance implications. Frankly the code there suffers
> a bit from some extra allocations and copies that I think a smarter
> implementation could eliminate.)
>
> The code for this is in the following PR, which I would appreciate folks
> reviewing:
>
> https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/pull/388
> <https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/pull/388>
>
> Hopefully if it gets a meaningful review, it can be mainlined. (Note that at
> this point I think I have thumbs-up on the design at least, from Martin and
> any of the other stakeholders who’ve spoken up.)
>
> I’m also happy to hear about any test results, successful or otherwise, using
> this code.
>
> I’ve not yet implemented the compatible code for this in mangos, but I expect
> it won’t take long. And, the backtrace support will have a much lower impact
> on mangos than it did on libnanomsg. :-)
>
> Note that I did not keep support for the old protocol around, but I did take
> care to make sure we don’t accidentally try to make the old protocol and new
> speak together incorrectly, except for the websocket stuff which has a
> negotiation protocol so new that I strongly doubt anyone has put it into
> production yet, particularly with surveyor/respondent topologies.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Garrett
>
Other related posts:
