On 25 Aug 2015 at 8:22, Thomas Heller wrote:
As far as I can see, there is not a single function documented that returns anything than some equivalent to "shared_future<handle_ptr>".
The synchronous single shot functions return an afio::handle_ptr or some type appropriate for that function (e.g. enumerate() returns a vector of directory_entry).
The asynchronous single shot functions return an afio::future<T> where T is usually void. afio::future<T>.get_handle() returns an afio::handle_ptr, while afio::future<T>.get() returns whatever T is (which might be void).
The batch functions return vectors of afio::future<T>.
Ahh i missed the enumerate (btw, the sync enumerate example only shows the usage of the async version...) and stat functions (and maybe some others). The question remains: Why do they also need to return a handle? [snip] Why does it need to be shared_ptr<handle> in the first place? Why not just handle? A shared_ptr always implies shared ownership, when for example a boost::afio::file function returns, with whom is the ownership shared? [snip] It is misdesigned in the way that it implies shared ownership from the start on, that is something that should be left to the user. [snip] That's actually a very strange statement. shared_ptr implies shared ownership, aka some shared state. Sharing state requires synchronization to protect it from races. And yes, if you modify this shared from two threads without synchronization, you accidentally introduced a race. [snip] That doesn't make a lot of sense ... Of course, if your state is not shared, you don't introduce races, but if you don't have a shared state, why use shared_ptr?
I think Thomas you have missed something very fundamental about the AFIO design. I hope you don't mind me not replying to the rest of it (which was useful) and I'll just dig into the above as others may be where you are. 1. An afio::future<> is *always* a future handle to a file. You asked why all functions always return a future handle to a file instead of just the functions which open a file. I'm getting the feeling you didn't understand that: future<vector<directory_entry>> async_enumerate(future<> precondition) ... expands, quite literally as you'll see in afio.hpp, into: return precondition.then(detail::async_enumerate()); ... which is a Concurrency TS continuation. detail::async_enumerate might then be effectively implemented as: struct async_enumerate { future<vector<directory_entry>> operator()(const future<> &precondition) const { return await do_async_directory_enumeration(precondition.get_handle()); } }; In other words, when the future precondition becomes ready, it will execute the continuation which calls the call operator on the instance of detail::async_enumerate. That call operator will schedule (via await) the directory enumeration of the file handle just become ready in the future precondition. This is why afio::future<> *always* is a future to a handle to a file. Does this make sense? 2. The reason why it's shared_ptr<handle> not handle * is precisely because of how to manage lifetime over unknown continuations. If the user writes: future<> oh=async_file("niall.txt"); future<> reads[100]; for(size_t n=0; n<100; n++) reads[n]=async_read(oh, buffers[n], 10, n*4096); So this schedules niall.txt to be opened, and then adds 100 continuations onto that file open each of which schedules the read of 10 bytes from a 4Kb multiple. All those 100 continuations occur in *parallel*, and could complete in *any* order. So how do you keep the handle to the niall.txt file around until the last continuation using that file has completed which is at some, unknown point in the future? The natural fit is shared_ptr. It's exactly what it was designed for. Does this make sense? 3. You have stated that you dislike the idea of afio::future<T> having shared future semantics for the future handle. But can you see that it is not possible to schedule 100 parallel data read continuations onto a file open unless the handle has shared future semantics? After all, if it had future semantics, you could only schedule exactly one read to each file open because then you would consume the future. It would not be possible to schedule parallel operations on any single preceding operation! Perhaps I am not understanding your concerns correctly? Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/