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

readBatch(), readAllAvailable() or getSyncReader() #327

Closed
tyoshino opened this issue Apr 13, 2015 · 1 comment
Closed

readBatch(), readAllAvailable() or getSyncReader() #327

tyoshino opened this issue Apr 13, 2015 · 1 comment

Comments

@tyoshino
Copy link
Member

Sub issue for #320.

It's still under discussion whether we should take care of the promises overhead. It's discussed at #320. This sub issue makes sense only if the conclusion for the issue turns out to be that we need sync mode.

As @wanderview analyzed in #320 (comment), there should not any big performance difference between them.

But as I questioned in #320 (comment), readBatch() and getSyncReader() have different power for recognition of the consumer's signal. This comment by me elaborates the first bullet point in the comment by Ben.

Domenic +1-ed readAllAvailable() at #320 (comment) to avoid confusion.

So, currently I see 3 approaches:

  1. provide readAllAvailable() on async reader
  2. provide readBatch(N) on async reader
  3. add getSyncReader()
@tyoshino tyoshino changed the title readBatch() or getSyncReader() readBatch(), readAllAvailable() or getSyncReader() Apr 13, 2015
@domenic
Copy link
Member

domenic commented Jun 17, 2015

Resolved in #320.

@domenic domenic closed this as completed Jun 17, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants