forked from DGNum/liminix
think
This commit is contained in:
parent
b43f17f655
commit
0f0688c802
1 changed files with 36 additions and 3 deletions
39
THOUGHTS.txt
39
THOUGHTS.txt
|
@ -4627,8 +4627,7 @@ tests. assuming the sysfs setup from all-events.txt, we can write tests lik
|
|||
- when I add a device with $attributes major minor foo bar baz
|
||||
it is added to indices for foo bar baz but not major minor
|
||||
|
||||
- when I remove it, it is gone (or marked as unfindable) from all
|
||||
indices
|
||||
- when I remove it, it can no longer be found by looking in any index
|
||||
|
||||
- when I query with multiple attributes, the search is performed
|
||||
using the most specific attribute (= the attribute whose
|
||||
|
@ -4642,4 +4641,38 @@ use so maybe it's an emerging pattern.
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
https://github.com/philanc/minisock useful? we could almost replace
|
||||
nellie with it only not quite
|
||||
nellie with it only not quite (it hardcodes 0 as the "protocol" param
|
||||
to socket())
|
||||
|
||||
Fri Apr 19 20:55:22 BST 2024
|
||||
|
||||
We could have a service that's present only when a devdb entry is
|
||||
present. For example mount_disk only runs when partlabel=foo
|
||||
|
||||
Or we could have a service that continues to run as the $somedatabase
|
||||
service state changes and does different things depending on the
|
||||
nature of those changes. For example, [I can't think of an example
|
||||
now, but it was definitely an issue the other day, maybe I dreamt it]
|
||||
I don't think this will be such an issue for devdb becuase there isn't
|
||||
much in it that has continuously varying values. Maybe battery health
|
||||
is the exception there
|
||||
|
||||
The step ahead we're thinking here is: how do clients do a request? A
|
||||
single one-of request for state is fine but chances are that a client
|
||||
will do that to get initial state and then need to open a netlink
|
||||
socket to get updates: well, if we can feed them the initial state
|
||||
filtered for their needs why can't we send them the relevant updates
|
||||
as well? This makes the database server design a bit more complicated
|
||||
as it needs to remember each client and their subscriptions, and then
|
||||
send only relevant updates to each subscribed client
|
||||
|
||||
* should a client be allowed multiple subscriptions on the same
|
||||
connection?
|
||||
|
||||
* do we guarantee that every message sent is matching the subscription
|
||||
or can we send other stuff as well if it makes implementation easier?
|
||||
it might defeat the purpose a bit because it means the client also
|
||||
needs to filter, but the client will anyway have to do some message
|
||||
parsing so they can distinguish add from remove
|
||||
|
||||
* where do we start?
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue