slice2sl 0.3.0 - amd code generation

kwaclawkwaclaw Oshawa, CanadaKarl WaclawekOrganization: PersonalMember
Seems slice2sl does not generate correct code for AMD.
Tested with this interface declaration:
interface FSListener {
    ["ami", "amd"] void Changed(string path, string name, byte chgTypes);
    ["ami", "amd"] void Renamed(string path, string name, string oldPath, string oldName, byte chgTypes);
    ["ami", "amd"] void Error(bool isBufferOverflow, string message);
  };

Karl

Comments

  • dwaynedwayne St. John's, NewfoundlandDwayne BooneOrganization: ZeroC, Inc.Project: Internet Communications EngineMember
    Silverlight 0.3 was not meant to support AMD. However, it still should not be generating uncompilable code when the amd keyword is present.
  • kwaclawkwaclaw Oshawa, CanadaKarl WaclawekOrganization: PersonalMember
    dwayne wrote: »
    Silverlight 0.3 was not meant to support AMD. However, it still should not be generating uncompilable code when the amd keyword is present.

    I am trying to use the new socket transport with call-backs. Would client AMD not be the best way to have the call-back finish the quickest from the server's point of view (two-way call-back)?

    Just to explain: The project's purpose is to demonstrate that ICE can do call-backs (even in Silverlight) where web services fail.
  • dwaynedwayne St. John's, NewfoundlandDwayne BooneOrganization: ZeroC, Inc.Project: Internet Communications EngineMember
    Yes, AMD can give quicker response times if an operation requires further processing after it is ok to send a response back to the caller. However, for an operation which just processes the request and sends the result back to the caller, AMD will not give faster response times.
  • matthewmatthew NL, CanadaMatthew NewhookOrganization: ZeroC, Inc.Project: Internet Communications EngineMember ✭✭✭
    kwaclaw wrote: »
    I am trying to use the new socket transport with call-backs. Would client AMD not be the best way to have the call-back finish the quickest from the server's point of view (two-way call-back)?

    If you must have two-wall callbacks you should also consider using AMI on the server side to avoid blocking the calling thread.
  • kwaclawkwaclaw Oshawa, CanadaKarl WaclawekOrganization: PersonalMember
    matthew wrote: »
    If you must have two-wall callbacks you should also consider using AMI on the server side to avoid blocking the calling thread.

    Yes, that is what I am doing. Thanks for the advice.
Sign In or Register to comment.