[lldb-dev] Getting ConnectionFileDescriptor working on Windows

[Todd Fiala]

> Unless you're using a connection string, the instantion site would just
instantiate the exact thing it wants.  e.g.
> ConnectionTcpListen *listener = new ConnectionTcpListen();

Ok - so these classes will exist across all OS builds, where on Windows you
get impls that have different details for each derived class, and on POSIXy
items the derived classes are either derive with no impl different from
base class, or typedefs (?) that map to the single base class, and
everything just works.  Is that about right?

I'm just looking at it from the angle of shared code using those new
classes when they're not using the connection string approach.

Sounds reasonable to me.


On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> Unless you're using a connection string, the instantion site would just
> instantiate the exact thing it wants.  e.g.
>
> ConnectionTcpListen *listener = new ConnectionTcpListen();
> listener->Connect();
> listener->GetBoundPort();
>
> something like that.
>
> For the connection string case, you would call a factory method that
> returns a Connection *
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Todd Fiala <tfiala at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Zachary,
>>
>> >> On posix in cases where it's user specified or don't know, it seems we
>> could just create a FileConnection and that would be equivalent to the
>> current behavior, since it seems to treat everything the same anyway.
>>
>> What would the instantiation sites for these classes look like?  Would it
>> be a call into some kind of Host level "'Create{Socket,File,Pipe}(...)"
>> factory method that knows what kind of underlying object to create based on
>> that?  In which case you can fork off to the right versions for Windows,
>> while POSIX-y systems would (as you noted) be able to use a single
>> file-descriptor-based impl?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking about splitting CFD into multiple classes, one for each
>>>> type of descriptor.  A FileConnection, PipeConnection, TcpSocketConnection,
>>>> ListeningConnection, etc.  Then, the caller would have to instantiate the
>>>> right kind.  This has its own set of problems, but at least seems to solve
>>>> the problem of requiring the creator of the CFD to specify what they're
>>>> actually giving us.  On posix in cases where it's user specified or don't
>>>> know, it seems we could just create a FileConnection and that would be
>>>> equivalent to the current behavior, since it seems to treat everything the
>>>> same anyway.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The more I think about this, the more I feel like it's the right
>>> approach (it might even be the only approach that even works, I can't
>>> really come up with anything else that solves the problem, much less does
>>> it nicely).  We've already got cases where people create a
>>> ConnectionFileDescriptor of a specific type, and use it in a way that would
>>> break if it weren't of that type.  Separating out the cases into different
>>> classes this way would allow these cases to be cleaner, as many methods
>>> that are publicly exposed on CFD, and some of the class members as well are
>>> specific to the type of fd being wrapped.  So the interfaces of the other
>>> types could become cleaner as well.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lldb-dev mailing list
>>> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | tfiala at google.com
>>
>>
>


-- 
Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | tfiala at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20141002/a2c82482/attachment.html>