Re: about the connection with afb-deamon

[José Bollo <jose.bollo@xxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 01:03:49 +0000
<I37546_CHIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Jose
> 
> Thank you very much for your advice.
> We will add it into our design candidates.

Hi ChenWei,

AGL is also a collaborative project. So if you consider to add a
dispatch event part then you can also consider to submit your code to
the community. I'll be happy to help in that case.

Best regards
José Bollo

> 
> Thanks/BR.
> ChenWei
> -----Original Message-----
> From: José Bollo [mailto:jose.bollo@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 5:22 PM
> To: I37546 Chin I
> Cc: fulup.arfoll@xxxxxxx; loic.collignon@xxxxxxx;
> automotive-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; I25461 Momiyama
> Yoshito Subject: Re:  about the connection with
> afb-deamon
> 
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 08:04:47 +0000
> <I37546_CHIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jose
> > 
> > Thanks for the caution.
> > We've also noticed that and try to design it as subscribing all
> > events in each listener. In our cases, we needn't to ignore special
> > event.
> > 
> > BTW, do you also think this can be done by one connection?
> > I mean something like we can set several listeners to one
> > connection, etc.  
> 
> If I understand your case, you could use one connection and
> filter/dispatch events for internal clients.
> 
> In that case, you could create your dispatcher.
> 
> We could also envision to integrate such mechanism in libafbwsc.
> 
> Otherwise, I have to admit that I have not fully understood your
> concern.
> 
> Best regards
> José
> 
> > Thanks/BR
> > ChenWei
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: José Bollo [mailto:jose.bollo@xxxxxxx] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 4:15 PM
> > To: I37546 Chin I
> > Cc: fulup.arfoll@xxxxxxx; loic.collignon@xxxxxxx;
> > automotive-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; I25461 Momiyama
> > Yoshito Subject: Re:  about the connection with
> > afb-deamon
> > 
> > On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 06:02:03 +0000
> > <I37546_CHIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi Jose
> > > 
> > > Thank you for your reply.
> > > 
> > > Yes, we also tested the multi-connection and found it works well.
> > > We are very glad to consider other solutions if it is better.
> > > 
> > > In fact, we're considering cases that each event listener has its
> > > own instance. In that way, we think we need different connection
> > > to identify the listener.(using the "closure") If one connection
> > > could also do this, I think we can accept this.    
> > 
> > Hi ChenWei,
> > 
> > If the idea is to manage several and different event subscriptions
> > then it is not possible with afb_ws_client_connect_wsj1.
> > Subscriptions are linked to connections.
> > 
> > Best regards
> > José
> >   
> > > 
> > > Thanks/BR
> > > ChenWei
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: José Bollo [mailto:jose.bollo@xxxxxxx] 
> > > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 6:54 PM
> > > To: I37546 Chin I
> > > Cc: josé bollo; Fulup Ar Foll; Loïc Collignon [ IoT.bzh ];
> > > automotive-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; I25461 Momiyama
> > > Yoshito Subject: Re:  about the connection with
> > > afb-deamon
> > > 
> > > 2018-08-10 10:15 GMT+02:00  <I37546_CHIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:    
> > > > Hi Jose      
> > > 
> > > Hi ChenWei,
> > >     
> > > > I have a question about connection with afb-deamon at APP side.
> > > > Is it possible that creating 2 or more connections(for e.g., by
> > > > afb_ws_client_connect_wsj1()) with same port/tokenID in one
> > > > APP(I mean one process)?      
> > > 
> > > I have never tried to do that since your question. So I tried and
> > > it works. But I guess that you already reached that conclusion.
> > >     
> > > > We have cases that APIs are called for different functions at
> > > > same time. I'd like to know if the reply from binder will be
> > > > sent to the right requester when we do this.      
> > > 
> > > Be aware that although opening many sockets works, it is not the
> > > prefered way to use libafbwsc. The underlying protocol allows
> > > interleaving of queries and responses and the the library already
> > > takes care of that feature. Then opening onlmy one socket should
> > > be enough even to handle several concurrent requests.
> > > 
> > > Nevertheless, I don't know your exact problem so I can not tell
> > > what is the best solution. Anyway both solutions work.
> > > 
> > > Best regards
> > > José
> > >     
> > > >
> > > > If there are any troubles with this, we will try to keep one
> > > > connection.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks/BR
> > > > ChenWei
> > > >      
> >   
> 

_______________________________________________
automotive-discussions mailing list
automotive-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/automotive-discussions