Re: [liblo] bundle timestamps

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:49 AM, alex <al...@sl...> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 22:58 -0500, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
>> Okay, general problems with timestamps aside, let's aim to at least
>> fix this bug before the next release.  I'll have to set down a few
>> specific goals for the next release, and I think this will definitely
>> be one of them since it seems we could nail it down soon.  If the
>> suggested change in the bug tracker is right, maybe that's that.
>
> Yes I think Dominic has it fixed.
>
>> But first, do you think it's feasible to create a test in the testlo.c
>> program that would identify mishandled timestamps?  For most bugs, I
>> have been trying to always add something to testlo that will break it,
>> before investigating the actual fix.
>
> I wrote a test to check that the bundles arrive in the right order
> according to the timetag.  Unfortunately it seems that they _do_ arrive
> in order, even without the patch, so I haven't got a failing test for
> you...
>
>> Second, I don't mind the idea of making timestamp queuing optional.
>> It seems that message forwarding is a common enough request that it
>> should be handled well by LibLo.  Does anyone have any API
>> suggestions?  It could be a boolean for lo_server, something like
>> lo_server_queueing_enabled().  Though I'm not convinced this will
>> cover all possible use cases, so it would be good to give some more
>> thought before adding to the API.
>
> That would be good for me, but the message also needs to know its
> 'logical time', which might then be in the future.
>
> Howabout adding a new method handler type that accepts a timetag (set to
> NULL for unbundled messages)?  Then lo_sever_add_timetag_method for
> registering a handler?
>
> lo_timetag_method lo_server_add_timetag_method(lo_server s,
>                                               const char *path,
>                                               const char *typespec,
>                                               lo_timetag_method_handler h,
>                                               void *user_data
>                                              );
>
> typedef int (*lo_timetag_method_handler)(lo_timetag *tt, const char *path,
>                                         const char *types,
>                                         lo_arg **argv, int argc, struct _lo_message
>                                         *msg, void *user_data);
>

Right.  If you want to forward the message, you'd want to use
lo_send_timestamped(), where you'd need the timetag information.

Gotta put this on my todo list..


Steve