-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
streams: introduce StreamWrap and JSStream #926
Changes from 2 commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ | ||
const util = require('util'); | ||
const Socket = require('net').Socket; | ||
const JSStream = process.binding('js_stream').JSStream; | ||
|
||
function StreamWrap(stream) { | ||
var handle = new JSStream(); | ||
|
||
this.stream = stream; | ||
|
||
var self = this; | ||
handle.close = function(cb) { | ||
cb(); | ||
}; | ||
handle.isAlive = function() { | ||
return self.isAlive(); | ||
}; | ||
handle.isClosing = function() { | ||
return self.isClosing(); | ||
}; | ||
handle.onreadstart = function() { | ||
return self.readStart(); | ||
}; | ||
handle.onreadstop = function() { | ||
return self.readStop(); | ||
}; | ||
handle.onshutdown = function(req) { | ||
return self.shutdown(req); | ||
}; | ||
handle.onwrite = function(req, bufs) { | ||
return self.write(req, bufs); | ||
}; | ||
|
||
this.stream.pause(); | ||
this.stream.on('data', function(chunk) { | ||
self._handle.readBuffer(chunk); | ||
}); | ||
this.stream.once('end', function() { | ||
self._handle.emitEOF(); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
Socket.call(this, { | ||
handle: handle | ||
}); | ||
} | ||
util.inherits(StreamWrap, Socket); | ||
exports.StreamWrap = StreamWrap; | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Tiny nit: may as well There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah, good idea. |
||
|
||
StreamWrap.prototype.isAlive = function isAlive() { | ||
return this.readable && this.writable; | ||
}; | ||
|
||
StreamWrap.prototype.isClosing = function isClosing() { | ||
return !this.isAlive(); | ||
}; | ||
|
||
StreamWrap.prototype.readStart = function readStart() { | ||
this.stream.resume(); | ||
return 0; | ||
}; | ||
|
||
StreamWrap.prototype.readStop = function readStop() { | ||
this.stream.pause(); | ||
return 0; | ||
}; | ||
|
||
StreamWrap.prototype.shutdown = function shutdown(req) { | ||
var self = this; | ||
|
||
this.stream.end(function() { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think we can get an error here, too. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. No, we can't :( There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I am mistaken! |
||
// Ensure that write was dispatched | ||
setImmediate(function() { | ||
self._handle.finishShutdown(req, 0); | ||
}); | ||
}); | ||
}; | ||
|
||
StreamWrap.prototype.write = function write(req, bufs) { | ||
var pending = bufs.length; | ||
var self = this; | ||
|
||
bufs.forEach(function(buf) { | ||
self.stream.write(buf, done); | ||
}); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Might be useful to sniff for There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Good suggestion. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think it should be enough to just use There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Fixed. |
||
|
||
function done() { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We may want to take There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Actually, ignore that – if we're listening on |
||
if (--pending !== 0) | ||
return; | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Does this mean that if there's an error we'll never execute the rest of the function? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. My mistake, will fix it in a bit. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Fixed. |
||
|
||
// Ensure that write was dispatched | ||
setImmediate(function() { | ||
self._handle.doAfterWrite(req); | ||
self._handle.finishWrite(req, 0); | ||
}); | ||
} | ||
}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What happens when the underlying stream emits an error? Per this diagram I don't think the stream will emit "end" or "finish". Is there a way to recover from an error in this state?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess this should be handled by the code that created this stream... it could be propagated to the
StreamWrap
object, though, and handled in_tls_wrap.js
. Does this sound plausible?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that sound plausible – my expectation would be that a StreamWrap'd stream would expose the inner stream's errors on the outer stream.
This could be a situation where a user gets a stream from package X, instantiates it and passes it to TLSSocket Y; I think the user assumes responsibility for adding error handlers to TLSSocket Y, while TLSSocket Y would be responsible for shutting down / closing / cleaning up once an error on stream X happens.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But this is not the way it works for piping the streams right now, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
An error downstream will unpipe and clean up listeners on the upstream stream, but will not shut down or destroy the source stream. This has caused a bit of confusion for stream users.
In addition, the act of nesting streams is distinct from piping streams, though piping can be involved in nesting. We don't nest streams often in core (TLS and arguably http are the only places we do something like this.) In userland usually the wrapping stream assumes responsibility for shutting itself down on inner stream error and exposing those errors to userland. Illustrated: