qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Stitcher <astitc...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [c++] Proposal for application function injection.
Date Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:50:39 GMT
On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 14:46 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
> ...
> The disadvantage is it requires a different inject() signature on
> every
> endpoint. I would argue that is more complicated for the user, but it
> also creates an implementation problem for delegating to "real" event
> loop. Instead of simply passing a `const std::function(void())&` up
> the
> line, you must convert it from std::function(void(link)) to
> std::function(void(connection)) to std::function(void(container)).
> Each
> step creates a new and different std::function object, and each may
> require a heap allocation.

This is a good point, that I'd not considered before, I do think that
there is significant benefit in being clear about what object you are
serialising against - but I think we agree there.

So consider the variable signature part of the proposal withdrawn.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org

View raw message