[Clam-devel] Re: Problems with the list

[Pau Arumí]

El dc 14 de 05 del 2008 a les 13:00 -0300, en/na Francisco Tufró va
escriure:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Pau Arumí <parumi at iua.upf.edu>
> wrote:
>         Hola Francisco!
>         could you send me a bounce to investigate the cause?
> It was an smtp configuration problem:
> [...]
> Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
> 
>     clam-devel at llistes.projectes.lafarga.org
> 
> Technical details of permanent failure:
> PERM_FAILURE: Gmail tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected
> by the recipient domain. The error that the other server returned was:
> 550 550 relay not permitted. We recommend contacting the other email
> provider for further information about the cause of this error. Thanks
> for your continued support. (state 14)
> 
> [...]
>  
>         
>         
>         About the patch. I think it's good.
>         Just two minor comments:
>         We have the "imperative" methods (AddLink, RemoveLink) at the
>         out
>         control only --which i think it's reasonable-- then why not to
>         simplify
>         and have IsConnectedTo only to the out control as well? Sounds
>         like
>         duplicated interface to me.
>         Agree?
>         
>         I guess (have not looked at it) the reason behind this
>         decision is
>         because it is how is done in current controls. If it is the
>         case i
>         wouldn't mind break the symetry. Or even refactor the current
>         controls.
> 
> That's the reason, i just followed the current control tests and do
> it.
> You are talking about IsConnectedTo only right?
> Because if we remove isConnected or the mLinks member from the
> TypedInControl we can't unlink it from the TypedOutControls when it's
> being destroyed.
>     template<class TypedControlData>
>     TypedInControl<TypedControlData>::~TypedInControl()
>     {
>         while (!mLinks.empty())
>             mLinks.front()->RemoveLink(*this);
>     }
> 
> If you're talking just about the IsConnectedTo, i think it's ok.

Yes. 


> 
>         
>         
>         I prefer to wait to the next patch before commiting. Hopefully
>         sending
>         to the list works again.
>         
>         Also, the multiple relation (1 out -> many ins) is not tested.
>         You could do a test like this:
>         out --> in1
>            \-> in2
>         then do out.SendControl(1)  and check it has been received in
>         both
>         inputs.
> I'll do this test today.
> Also yesterday i was thinking about the inverse case (many outs -> 1
> in).
> Should i do both tests? Or you think doing many outs -> 1 in is not
> correct? 

many outs -> 1 in, is (should be) supported, yes.

A test for this? Mmmm... i don't see the need, because the feature comes
free, i mean: IMO, there's is no new code associated to this feature.
But add the test anyway, if you feel like.

Pau




> 
> 
>         
>         
>         I think next tests should introduce the generic interface. For
>         that, the
>         trick is using base class references to concrete objects like
>         this:
>         
>         TypedInControl<int> concreteIn;
>         TypedOutControl<float> concreteOut:
>         BaseTypedInControl & in = concreteIn;
>         BaseTypedOutControl & out = concreteOut;
>         ASSERT false, in.IsLinkable(out)
>  Ok, when you commit the patch i'll send today, i'd start with this, I
> think is a big patch and should be isolated from the above
> modifications.
> Cambio y fuera.
> Francisco
> 
> 
>         
>         
>         
>         Saludos!
>         Pau
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         El dt 13 de 05 del 2008 a les 12:52 -0300, en/na Francisco
>         Tufró va
>         escriure:
>         
>         > forgot the attach
>         >
>         > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Francisco Tufró
>         <nictuku at gmail.com>
>         > wrote:
>         >         Hi guys, I'm having problems sending messages to the
>         list (and
>         >         i haven't recieved any mail from it since sunday,
>         and every
>         >         mail i send bounces with a relay problem while i'm
>         not doing
>         >         relay), so i send the patch to you.
>         >         I've done the "IsConnected, IsConnectedTo" tests and
>         the
>         >         Destructor tests (and all the implementation to pass
>         them).
>         >         So, please tell me what should i do next.
>         >         :)
>         >         Francisco
>         >
>         
>         
>