added initial draft for stream interfaces #55
Conversation
|
|
||
| ### Sink | ||
|
|
||
| - `undefined .write(Stream stream)` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The .write method could be confusing. It's more like a reverse .pipe, but that method name should be reserved, because some classes may implemented full featured streams. Another proposed method name was .consume.
It's the same for .read. Reading triples from a source could be also described as writing all triples from the source to a stream. .filter could be used, but would be confusing if the filter feature isn't used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the last meeting we collected the following alternative methods names. What do you think about them? Other proposals?
.accept
.consume
.input
.import
.append
.readFrom
.pull(From)
.reversePipe
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 for import/readFrom
-1 for pull (without From)/reversePipe
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 .consume / .import
-1 .accept / .input / .readFrom / .pull / .pullFrom / .reversePipe
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 .consume / .accept / .readFrom / .reversePipe / .append
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I strongly recommend cribbing from:
https://nodejs.org/api/stream.html#stream_event_readable
https://streams.spec.whatwg.org/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dlongley We're indeed using a subset of Node.js streams (intentionally not the full interface, because its backpressure control makes it expensive).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have at least 2 * +1 for .import. I will change my PR. If there are good arguments for a different method name, we can change that later.
|
IMO this PR received enough feedback to merge it after @bergos turns this feedback into new commits. After that everyone still have possibility to make new PRs proposing specific improvement to this initial draft, this should also allow for more granular changes and focused conversations. |
No description provided.