Clean up closed connections #283
Conversation
|
The general idea is good, however, as it is, the agent counts would be decremented twice for streams that emit both I'd move agent counting to |
|
Thanks @gkubisa for the guidance. I implemented it as you suggested, and also added tests. I believe this solves #282. This PR, by the way, would unblock merging of #281 Kindly requesting review by @ericyhwang or @nateps . Thanks! |
|
I've just merged this code into the Teamwork fork of ShareDB. |
| @@ -56,8 +56,15 @@ Agent.prototype.close = function(err) { | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| Agent.prototype._cleanup = function() { | |||
|
|
|||
| // Only clean up once if the stream emits both 'end' and 'close'. | |||
| if (this.closed) return; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice, this will be defensive against 'end' accidentally being emitted twice by the stream too, which the old code didn't do.
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| var cleanup = agent._cleanup.bind(agent); | ||
| this.stream.on('end', cleanup); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion by Nate for the future, paraphrased by me:
In the future, we should consider not reacting to
'end', and only reacting to'close'. He says that Share originally reacted to'end'since the original stream implementation by Avital emitted both'end'and'close', since that was the recommendation for old versions of Node.Nowadays, we probably no longer need to do that.
|
This is published as sharedb@1.0.0-beta.22 |
The intention here is to resolve #282.
As of now this is a rough first pass. I have not tested or verified if this works yet.
@gkubisa Does this approach seem to make sense?