Skip to content
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

Add/volatile support #710

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

kevin-roark
Copy link
Contributor

this seems like a solid feature to me. Let me know what y'all think!

@kevin-roark
Copy link
Contributor Author

also, I was only able to run zuul tests locally because my internet connection is really wonky right now

@kevin-roark
Copy link
Contributor Author

addresses a very old issue here #283

@rauchg
Copy link
Contributor

rauchg commented Jun 23, 2014

The underlying socket should be still writable, but if busy writing out packets we need to ditch the packet.

@rauchg
Copy link
Contributor

rauchg commented Jun 23, 2014

This is why I added a callback to the engine.io writes btw. The idea was to match the write signature from Node.JS, that takes a callback when the packet is being written out: http://nodejs.org/api/net.html#net_socket_write_data_encoding_callback

This means that we can still swap the underlying transport and support packet volatility.

@kevin-roark
Copy link
Contributor Author

@guille are you saying ditch the check for engine.writable, and have a separate property that is controlled in the write callback?

@rauchg
Copy link
Contributor

rauchg commented Jun 24, 2014

@kevin-roark
Copy link
Contributor Author

@guille let me know how you feel now 🍪. also, the should not autoconnect test is failing for me, also in upstream. uh-oh!!

@rauchg
Copy link
Contributor

rauchg commented Jun 26, 2014

I'm a little concerned about the testing strategy relying on the knowledge of a private member (numPacketsWriting), and altering it from the outside. Maybe a test that doesn't rely on this?

@nkzawa nkzawa mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2015
@rauchg rauchg closed this Jan 8, 2016
@thoqbk thoqbk mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants