Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com> writes: > So this is an interesting start. The idea of buffering the transfer > is great -- however, it falls short in this implementation because it > is internal to read-response-body. The buffering is useless, it's already performed by get-bytevector-n. In this sense, it is also not internal to read-response-body
> Also, the whole business about passing the partial data out via an > exception is very messy. > > What about also passing a bytevector to read-response-body? The > exception then only needs to mention how many bytes were read because > the caller already has access to the bytevector aka the data. > > Consider this quick hack: > > (define* (read-response-body! r bv #:optional > (start 0) > (count (min (bytevector-length bv) > (response-content-length r)))) > (and count > (let ((read (get-bytevector-n! (response-port r) bv start count))) > (if (= read count) > bv > (bad-response > "EOF while reading response body: ~a bytes of ~a (buffer)" > read count))))) > > which has all the features of your solution yet is much smaller and > puts the caller in more explicit control of the buffering, which opens > up many scenarios. Removing the unnecessary buffering also makes it smaller. :P > For example, reusing the same bytevector and looping over > read-response-body! saving the results to disk each time. This limits > the memory use to the size of the bytevector *and* removes the copy > operation from your implementation (bonus!). If you wanted to do it that way, it'd be better to pass in the port directly and cut out the middle man. -- Ian Price "Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy Compiled"
