Do not mix `class Kinetic` and Kinetic messages about arsenal HOT 6 CLOSED

This is a good idea. +1

from arsenal.

I also Approve (Although I would prefer a simpler name to understand than
KineticPDU)

David Pineau
Scality R&D Developer

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Michael Zapata [email protected]
wrote:

This is a good idea. +1

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#18 (comment)
.

from arsenal.

Hm, thinking back on it, the Kinetic class was supposed to represent a single message. I don't see where the problem is.

from arsenal.

Here, I'm trusting the comments made by each of you. Maybe we're actually
looking too much into it, and Allocating a Kinetic class for each message
is more than enough...?

David Pineau
Scality R&D Developer

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Michael Zapata [email protected]
wrote:

Hm, the Kinetic class was supposed to represent a single message. I don't
see where the problem is.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#18 (comment)
.

from arsenal.

@AntoninCoulibaly Here is how I ideally see the implementation:

Kinetic.js would not export a class Kinetic, but functions such as receivePDU() or sendPDU(pdu, socket); and static constants such as errors.INVALID_STATUS_CODE.

So from another project such as Data, we could do:

import kinetic from 'arsenal';

const incomingPDU = kinetic.receivePDU();
const incomingProtobuf = incomingPDU.protobuf;
log.info("operation " + incomingProtobuf.opType); // GET, PUT...

// process data

const response = new kinetic.PDU();
response.protobuf.error = kinetic.errors.INVALID_STATUS_CODE;
kinetic.sendPDU(response, mySocket);

Does it make sense?

from arsenal.

It make sense, I think we have to discuss about this to see what we allocate in the Kinetic class. Because it is true than some function can be usable without the instance like computeHMAC() or parse(), but not much I think.

For the static constants I'm really on this idea.

from arsenal.