Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Stream creation order (#634)

[ThomasSwindells <[e-mail]>]

If you are treating streams as being message and have multiple producer threads of those messages then being able to allocate each thread its own pool of stream ids removes some message by message synchronization requirements. You could also assign different blocks of message ids to different cpu cores to have a quick and easy way to keep processing affinity. Admittedly none are killer requirements, but spinning your question round, why would you want to impose strict serialization of the system if you don’t have to?

From: Martin Thomson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 28 September 2017 03:19
To: quicwg/base-drafts <[e-mail]>
Cc: Subscribed <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Stream creation order (#634)


Your implementation point there seems to motivate the opposite. As Mike said, receiving stream X might open stream X-2, but the receiver doesn't have to do anything at that point.

Here's a different way to think about this: why do you want to open streams out of order?

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/634#issuecomment-332708135>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AYUiYlMerfA0aFMs2b8dn_RWUtLTwVZ5ks5smwIegaJpZM4N73Yh>.


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/634#issuecomment-332763510