From: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 21:49:55 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter.<driver>.process option
Message-ID: <59C5366C-AB41-49D9-8FFF-F109AF242580@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2e13c31c-5ee2-890d-1268-98fb67aba1ea@web.de>


> On 05 Aug 2016, at 23:34, Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> wrote:
> 
> On 2016-08-03 18.42, larsxschneider@gmail.com wrote:
>> The filter is expected to respond with the result content in zero
>> or more pkt-line packets and a flush packet at the end. Finally, a
>> "result=success" packet is expected if everything went well.
>> ------------------------
>> packet:          git< SMUDGED_CONTENT
>> packet:          git< 0000
>> packet:          git< result=success\n
>> ------------------------
> I would really send the diagnostics/return codes before the content.
> 
>> If the result content is empty then the filter is expected to respond
>> only with a flush packet and a "result=success" packet.
>> ------------------------
>> packet:          git< 0000
>> packet:          git< result=success\n
>> ------------------------
> 
> Which may be:
> 
> packet:          git< result=success\n
> packet:          git< SMUDGED_CONTENT
> packet:          git< 0000
> 
> or for an empty file:
> 
> packet:          git< result=success\n
> packet:          git< SMUDGED_CONTENT
> packet:          git< 0000

I think you meant:
packet:          git< result=success\n
packet:          git< 0000

Right?

> 
> or in case of an error:
> packet:          git< result=reject\n
> # And this will not send the "0000" packet
> 
> Does this makes sense ?

I see your point. However, I think your suggestion would not work in the
true streaming case as the filter wouldn't know upfront if the operation 
will succeed, right?

Thanks for the review,
Lars