Skip to content
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Loading...
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
C
capnproto
Project
Project
Details
Activity
Cycle Analytics
Repository
Repository
Files
Commits
Branches
Tags
Contributors
Graph
Compare
Charts
Issues
0
Issues
0
List
Board
Labels
Milestones
Merge Requests
0
Merge Requests
0
CI / CD
CI / CD
Pipelines
Jobs
Schedules
Charts
Packages
Packages
Wiki
Wiki
Snippets
Snippets
Members
Members
Collapse sidebar
Close sidebar
Activity
Graph
Charts
Create a new issue
Jobs
Commits
Issue Boards
Open sidebar
submodule
capnproto
Commits
da5a1f4b
Commit
da5a1f4b
authored
May 29, 2014
by
Kenton Varda
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Plain Diff
Merge pull request #95 from kaos/patch-2
Close #94: obsolete comment in rpc.capnp
parents
222a77f9
1494d9ec
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
with
8 additions
and
10 deletions
+8
-10
rpc.capnp
c++/src/capnp/rpc.capnp
+8
-10
No files found.
c++/src/capnp/rpc.capnp
View file @
da5a1f4b
...
...
@@ -420,21 +420,19 @@ struct Finish {
# Message type sent from the caller to the callee to indicate:
# 1) The questionId will no longer be used in any messages sent by the callee (no further
# pipelined requests).
# 2) Any capabilities in the results other than the ones listed below should be implicitly
# released.
# 3) If the call has not returned yet, the caller no longer cares about the result. If nothing
# else cares about the result either (e.g. there are to other outstanding calls pipelined on
# 2) If the call has not returned yet, the caller no longer cares about the result. If nothing
# else cares about the result either (e.g. there are no other outstanding calls pipelined on
# the result of this one) then the callee may wish to immediately cancel the operation and
# send back a Return message with "canceled" set. However, implementations are not required
# to support premature cancellation -- instead, the implementation may wait until the call
# actually completes and send a normal `Return` message.
#
# TODO(someday):
Should we separate (1) and (2)? It would be possible and useful to notify th
e
#
server that it doesn't need to keep around the response to service pipeline requests even
#
though the caller still wants to receive it / hasn't yet finished processing it. It could
#
also be useful to notify the server that it need not marshal the results because the caller
#
doesn't want them anyway, even if the caller is still sending pipelined calls, although this
# seems less useful (just saving some bytes on the wire).
# TODO(someday):
Should we separate (1) and implicitly releasing result capabilities? It would b
e
#
possible and useful to notify the server that it doesn't need to keep around the response to
#
service pipeline requests even though the caller still wants to receive it / hasn't yet
#
finished processing it. It could also be useful to notify the server that it need not marshal
#
the results because the caller doesn't want them anyway, even if the caller is still sending
#
pipelined calls, although this
seems less useful (just saving some bytes on the wire).
questionId @0 :QuestionId;
# ID of the call whose result is to be released.
...
...
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment