Re: [reSIProcate-users] virtual process() in SelectInterruptor?

["Mats Behre" <Mats.Behre@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: [reSIProcate-users] virtual process() in SelectInterruptor?

Yes, that works just as fine.

Thanks,
Mats


-----Original Message-----
From: slgodin@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Scott Godin
Sent: Tue 2008-12-02 16:15
To: Mats Behre
Cc: resiprocate-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate-users] virtual process() in SelectInterruptor?

This approach seems reasonable to me, as long as you are not doing
anything time consuming in your own processing.  I will add a virtual
process method to InterruptableStackThread, instead of making
SelectInterruptor process virtual - I believe this should serve your
purpose as well.

Thanks,
Scott

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Mats Behre <Mats.Behre@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We are running the reSIProcate stack through the InterruptableStackThread
> class. In order to signal the main thread when and only when there are new
> messages pending, I have changed the process function of SelectInterruptor
> to be virtual, and am using a subclass of it for the SipStack and
> InterruptableStackThread instances. (This subclass' version of process does
> our checks and then calls SelectInterruptor::process.)
> Is this for some reason a bad thing to do? If not, could the change make it
> into the standard code base?
>
> Mats
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-users mailing list
> resiprocate-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> List Archive: http://list.resiprocate.org/archive/resiprocate-users/
>