On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 10:03 -0500, Alan Conway wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 15:10 +0000, Adel Boutros wrote: > > We have not yet compiled proton with libuv so I might not be that > > straightforward for us. > > > > > > I hope the new I/O will work easily because I have already around 7 > > patches for 0.7.0 and I am at 27% compilation.
If you have changes to driver.c, server.c and container.c in particular let me know. driver.c is going away, and any changes there *probably* won't need to be ported but I should review them in case. server.c has changed a lot, container.c a little. Any changes there may need manual porting. Everything else should be plain sailing. I will work with you to ensure that my changes work on solaris - ideally before I commit them, if not very shortly afterward. Initially they will require libuv on solaris. At this point we have working libuv, epoll and IOCP implementations of the proactor so it seems to be living up to it's goal of making new IO ports a manageable job. I reckon plain poll port would be a week tops. Even native kqueue would now be quite achievable for someone who knows kqueue (not anyone here.) I have the pedal to the metal (but am plagued with other distractions) and will work with you to make sure you are succesful too. Shout if there's anything more I can do to help with that (early access to code etc.) Cheers, Alan. > > > > > > So do I :) If you want a preview I can put snapshots on a branch. It > is > sort-of working but still full of holes where I cut out the old > driver, and it falls down one of them from time to time. I am filling > them in as fast as I can... > > I'll take account of any patches on master as I go, if you have > patches > that aren't ported to master for some reason, and you think they > might > be relevant let me know. > > Lets track it here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-39 > 0 > > > > Regards, > > > > Adel > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Ted Ross <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 3:58:51 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Dispatch Router] Unexpected behavior when starting > > the > > same dispatch router twice > > > > You should be aware that Alan Conway is working on converting the > > Dispatch I/O layer to use Proton proactor and libuv. This might > > make > > the port to Solaris (and Windows) much easier. > > > > -Ted > > > > > > On 01/20/2017 09:54 AM, Adel Boutros wrote: > > > I hope by that time I will have finished porting Dispatch Router > > > to > > > Solaris and submitted my patches. There have been a lot of > > > changes > > > since the last time we tried to compile 0.5 on Solaris :( > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Adel > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Ted Ross <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 2:50:49 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Dispatch Router] Unexpected behavior when starting > > > the same dispatch router twice > > > > > > Actually, we haven't settled on a schedule for 0.8.0 yet. There > > > are 90 > > > issues assigned to 0.8.0 with 11 currently not resolved. > > > > > > I think mid-to-late February would be a good timeframe for this > > > release. > > > > > > -Ted > > > > > > On 01/20/2017 08:39 AM, Ganesh Murthy wrote: > > > > 0.8 is expected to come out around mid February. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Adel Boutros" <[email protected]> > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 8:31:40 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: [Dispatch Router] Unexpected behavior when > > > > > starting the same dispatch router twice > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ted! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is 0.8 expected to come out soon? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Adel > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: Ted Ross <[email protected]> > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 2:06:24 PM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: Re: [Dispatch Router] Unexpected behavior when > > > > > starting the same > > > > > dispatch router twice > > > > > > > > > > Adel, > > > > > > > > > > This was raised as a Jira > > > > > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-55) and has > > > > > been > > > > > resolved for 0.8.0. There's some discussion captured on that > > > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > > The short answer is: Yes, the second start should fail. > > > > > > > > > > -Ted > > > > > > > > > > On 01/20/2017 03:45 AM, Adel Boutros wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was messing around with the Dispatch Router and noticed a > > > > > > weird behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I start the dispatch router with a config file a first > > > > > > time, the broker > > > > > > is started correctly and is available. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I start the same dispatch router a second time with the > > > > > > same config > > > > > > file, it doesn't fail but in the logs it says the address > > > > > > is > > > > > > already bound > > > > > > but it continues processing the config file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you confirm that the second start should crash the > > > > > > dispatch router? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Logs on starting second dispatch router > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > Fri Jan 20 09:40:58 2017 DRIVER (error) bind: Address > > > > > > already > > > > > > in use > > > > > > Fri Jan 20 09:40:58 2017 AGENT (debug) Add entity: > > > > > > ListenerEntity(addr=0.0.0.0, authenticatePeer=False, > > > > > > cost=1, > > > > > > host=127.0.0.1, identity=listener/127.0.0.1:10501, > > > > > > idleTimeoutSeconds=16, > > > > > > maxFrameSize=16384, port=10501, requireEncryption=False, > > > > > > requireSsl=False, > > > > > > role=normal, saslMechanisms=ANONYMOUS, > > > > > > stripAnnotations=both, > > > > > > type=org.apache.qpid.dispatch.listener) > > > > > > Fri Jan 20 09:40:58 2017 POLICY (info) Policy configured > > > > > > maximumConnections: 0, policyFolder: '', access rules > > > > > > enabled: 'false' > > > > > > Fri Jan 20 09:40:58 2017 AGENT (debug) Add entity: > > > > > > Entity(defaultApplication=, > > > > > > defaultApplicationEnabled=False, > > > > > > enableAccessRules=False, maximumConnections=0, > > > > > > policyFolder=, > > > > > > type=org.apache.qpid.dispatch.policy) > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Adel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------ > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
