Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 19:33:09 -0500 From: Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@freebsd.org>, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>, "arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Libxo bugs and fixes. Message-ID: <201501050033.t050X9L5086220@idle.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <31BE601E-1D52-42FE-92FC-4610D0250A20@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein writes: >I think we REALLY want to have the fflush be a callback offered by libxo, otherwise the >layering violations are pretty difficult to deal with. Consider if libxo is outputting >to a non-stdio buffer, then what is the paradigm? Is it not better to give libxo a "flu >sh" callback and have that exposed via the xop interface? The problem is divining when to flush. If you are whiffling thru a list, does the app want to flush after each list member, or when the complete list is done. Or maybe you are just looking at the case when pretty output is made to the terminal? Thanks, Phil
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201501050033.t050X9L5086220>