Expose the internal task of the send operations as a return value #126
Conversation
|
Why was |
|
I originally changed it to match the signature of SendPong since it was assigned with it in the constructor: However, it seems like it was unnecessary since I could just change the assignment to: So I added another commit with this change. |
| { | ||
| if (Handler == null) | ||
| throw new InvalidOperationException("Cannot send before handshake"); | ||
|
|
||
| if (!IsAvailable) { | ||
| FleckLog.Warn("Data sent while closing or after close. Ignoring."); | ||
| return; | ||
| return null; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should return a faulted task so consumers of Send don't need to do an "if null" check and can choose to handle it through ContinuationOptions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How should I do that?
The Task's Status property is read-only, so it's impossible to create a task only for the sake of returning it with a Faulted status.
Also, a task was not yet created at this point, so it's not necessary to handle it in the way you suggested, other than for keeping the consumer code clean.
The only way I can think to accomplish it is to create a task, throw exception in it's body, start it, and return it.
Is this what you had in mind?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As ugly as that is, creating a task with a raised exception in it would be the bast way to handle the scenario. Throwing something like Fleck.ConnectionNotAvailableException is more descriptive and self-documenting than a null reference.
Expose the internal task of the send operations as a return value
|
Great! Thanks for your work on this. |
Exposing the Task object gives the caller to the the Send method, an access to asynchronous send operation.
An example benefit is that if the caller needs to guarantee that an order is being kept between consecutive
send operations, he can wait for the task to complete and only then call Send again.