gozala / channel Goto Github PK

Calling gnode directly is just as bad as calling coffee-script directly.

It mutates the require.extensions global.

You can move gnode to devDependencies.

Hi Gozala this is really just a question (it might be an issue but might not).

I was trying this module out today and I was esp. interested in using it with generators.

Can you see something wrong with the simple "example.js" I wrote below? It doesn't seem to work don't know if I've done something wrong or what:

var chan = require("channel");

console.log('making the channel');
var ch = new chan.Channel();

chan.spawn(function * () {
  while(true) {
    console.log('putting 1');
    yield ch.put(1);
    console.log('putting 2');
    yield ch.put(2);
    console.log('back from putting 2');
 }
});

chan.spawn(function * () {
  while(true) {
    console.log('reading 1');
    console.log(yield ch.take());
    console.log('reading 2');
    console.log(yield ch.take());
    console.log('back from reading 2');
 }
});

console.log('end');

Then output I get running "node --harmony example.js" is:

making the channel
putting 1
reading 1
end

Which I guess mean my puts and takes never resolved?

DroppingBuffer seems to inherit the prototype from itself, which breaks its functionality (e.g. Channel.output.put produces an error). I have fixed it as follows:

buffer.js : line 64:

DroppingBuffer.prototype = Object.create(DroppingBuffer.prototype)

should be

DroppingBuffer.prototype = Object.create(UnblockingBuffer.prototype)

I wasn't sure if this should be a pull request or not, so I decided to report it instead.

it would be nice if port.close returns a promise when its done completing all pending puts / takes.

This is confusing:

channel.output.put(x)
var data = channel.input.take()

If we're using words like "input" and "output" to describe parts of a channel, It seems like we'd put something into the input of a channel, and take something out of the output of a channel, so in that case, it'd make more sense as

channel.input.put(x)
var data = channel.output.take()

Isn't it more intuitive that way? Or did I missunderstand something about the concept?

I noticed this channel library can work with simple promises without having to use generators.

And that your "spawn" function is fairly simple and designed around promises.

And I knew TJ's "co" module allows you to yield promises to his "co" function (similar to your "spawn"):
https://www.npmjs.com/package/co

My question: Do you know (or do you think?) your module could work using that other "co" library in lieu of your "spawn" function? Is that part of the idea behind your design using Promises?

(I only ask because there's some other helper libraries that work together with "co" that seem convenient so I'd like to use it together with your library).