3 ms·

Yup, IO objects use `each` for reading. I want to write to the socket. I am lamenting the hoops I have to jump through in order to make a reader act like a wri

Yup, IO objects use `each` for reading. I want to write to the socket. I am lamenting the hoops I have to jump through in order to make a reader act like a writer. Somehow data must be fed to the `each` function which means probably a Queue and a Thread, or possibly feeding Rack the read end of a pipe. None of these solutions is very appetizing to me. :)

masklinn 14y ago
> I want to write to the socket. That's what you do when you yield to the each's block. It's not like the caller calls each multiple times when it wants new data, he calls `each` once and you feed it data via the block it provides. > Somehow data must be fed to the `each` function Just as it "must be" fed to the `write` in your examples.
- tenderlove 14y ago
  > > I want to write to the socket. > That's what you do when you yield to the each's block. No IO object in ruby uses the `each` method for writing.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    You are mistaken and confused. All IO objects in Ruby use `each` for writing out, non-IO objects use something else to write to IO objects. But from an IO object's perspective, that's a read. Rack responses are IO objects, so they use #each to write data out. That's perfectly coherent.
    - bascule 14y ago
      Responding to #each is neither a necessary or sufficient property of Ruby IO objects. You are mistaken and confused. Don't believe me? Let's undefine #each on the metaclass of an IO object and see what happens. Guess what: it still works! https://gist.github.com/3218710 https://gist.github.com/3218710
randomdata 14y ago
In sufficiently modern versions of Rails you could write: def index self.response_body = Enumerator.new do |socket| 100.times do socket << "hello world" end end end Your API is a little less verbose, I'll give you that, but I don't see why you need Queues and Threads unless the problem actually calls for those things. It still looks like you are writing to a socket either way.
- lloeki 14y ago
  That's what I do, encapsulated in a bunch of methods aggregated in a streaming module. Don't forget to set this if you're using nginx (which my module does). headers['X-Accel-Buffering'] = 'no'
ROFISH 14y ago
Does this solve the problem of Rails' ridiculously high stack? (functions in functions in functions, Rails' stack is daunting...) If you had the ability to write to a buffer, you don't need the stack, just pass the buffer object around.

masklinn 14y ago

> I want to write to the socket. That's what you do when you yield to the each's block. It's not like the caller calls each multiple times when it wants new data, he calls `each` once and you feed it data via the block it provides. > Somehow data must be fed to the `each` function Just as it "must be" fed to the `write` in your examples.

tenderlove 14y ago
> > I want to write to the socket. > That's what you do when you yield to the each's block. No IO object in ruby uses the `each` method for writing.
- masklinn 14y ago
  You are mistaken and confused. All IO objects in Ruby use `each` for writing out, non-IO objects use something else to write to IO objects. But from an IO object's perspective, that's a read. Rack responses are IO objects, so they use #each to write data out. That's perfectly coherent.
  - bascule 14y ago
    Responding to #each is neither a necessary or sufficient property of Ruby IO objects. You are mistaken and confused. Don't believe me? Let's undefine #each on the metaclass of an IO object and see what happens. Guess what: it still works! https://gist.github.com/3218710 https://gist.github.com/3218710

randomdata 14y ago

In sufficiently modern versions of Rails you could write: def index self.response_body = Enumerator.new do |socket| 100.times do socket << "hello world" end end end Your API is a little less verbose, I'll give you that, but I don't see why you need Queues and Threads unless the problem actually calls for those things. It still looks like you are writing to a socket either way.

lloeki 14y ago
That's what I do, encapsulated in a bunch of methods aggregated in a streaming module. Don't forget to set this if you're using nginx (which my module does). headers['X-Accel-Buffering'] = 'no'

ROFISH 14y ago

Does this solve the problem of Rails' ridiculously high stack? (functions in functions in functions, Rails' stack is daunting...) If you had the ability to write to a buffer, you don't need the stack, just pass the buffer object around.