add interface for core.udpsocket

trevj commented 10 years ago

This adds core.udpsocket, for UDP-based communication.

I have an implementation and some client code which uses this which I'm happy to share if you like but I reckon the API is so simple you may not need it.

This is much simpler than core.socket for two reasons:

UDP's much simpler than TCP!
I ran into some issues with core.socket due to my misunderstanding of event handling so I wanted to make clear that core.udpsocket represents a UDP socket and is not just a thin layer over the Unix/Chrome sockets API (make sense?)

Question: Is it possible to supply arguments to a Freedom API constructor? I'd love to dispense with bind() and instead pass the address and port to the constructor -- it would further reduce the API and reduce state.

I will rename core.socket -> core.tcpsocket in a followup.

coveralls commented 10 years ago

Coverage increased (+0.01%) when pulling 1bd3edb0be12da67323701541b8a53e6deb31ca1 on yangoon-core.udpsocket into 426a8ec91b695f2a123c8b40da533a4b74056841 on master.

willscott commented 10 years ago

:+1: constructor arguments is tracked in #5

trevj commented 10 years ago

I just noticed this was merged into master. Would it be easy to merge this into v0.2.2, which socks-rtc is still on? (I have a followup change which depends on this commit)

willscott commented 10 years ago

I'd prefer for this to stay in v0.3, given that I just put the work into setting up canonical places for the providers to live so that we don't end up with 3 different versions of the providers like we did with the chrome socket provider. Do we need to do that again with the new provider?

iislucas commented 10 years ago

Let's update socks-rtc to v0.3.2 of freedom, using freedom-chrome-runtime.

Trevor you OK to take this?

-- from mobile, please forgive typos. On Mar 4, 2014 6:00 PM, "Will" notifications@github.com wrote:

I'd prefer for this to stay in v0.3, given that I just put the work into setting up canonical places for the providers to live so that we don't end up with 3 different versions of the providers like we did with the chrome socket provider. Do we need to do that again with the new provider?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/UWNetworksLab/freedom/pull/52#issuecomment-36702563 .

trevj commented 10 years ago

I'll do my best!

On 4 March 2014 23:13, Lucas Dixon notifications@github.com wrote:

Let's update socks-rtc to v0.3.2 of freedom, using freedom-chrome-runtime.

Trevor you OK to take this?

-- from mobile, please forgive typos. On Mar 4, 2014 6:00 PM, "Will" notifications@github.com wrote:

I'd prefer for this to stay in v0.3, given that I just put the work into setting up canonical places for the providers to live so that we don't end up with 3 different versions of the providers like we did with the chrome socket provider. Do we need to do that again with the new provider?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/UWNetworksLab/freedom/pull/52#issuecomment-36702563> .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/UWNetworksLab/freedom/pull/52#issuecomment-36708584 .

Trevor Johnston Software Engineer, Google New York

iislucas commented 10 years ago

:) I'll be back tomorrow am; about to get a redeye flight, so if it's confusing we can discuss, clarify, and make it work. :)

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:22 PM, yangoon notifications@github.com wrote:

I'll do my best!

On 4 March 2014 23:13, Lucas Dixon notifications@github.com wrote:

Let's update socks-rtc to v0.3.2 of freedom, using freedom-chrome-runtime.

Trevor you OK to take this?

-- from mobile, please forgive typos. On Mar 4, 2014 6:00 PM, "Will" notifications@github.com wrote:

I'd prefer for this to stay in v0.3, given that I just put the work into setting up canonical places for the providers to live so that we don't end up with 3 different versions of the providers like we did with the chrome socket provider. Do we need to do that again with the new provider?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/UWNetworksLab/freedom/pull/52#issuecomment-36702563> .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/UWNetworksLab/freedom/pull/52#issuecomment-36708584> .

Trevor Johnston Software Engineer, Google New York

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/UWNetworksLab/freedom/pull/52#issuecomment-36708904 .

Lucas Dixon | Google Ideas

willscott commented 10 years ago

Awesome! I'll be online tomorrow to help and / or answer questions :)

--will On Mar 4, 2014 8:22 PM, "yangoon" notifications@github.com wrote:

I'll do my best!

On 4 March 2014 23:13, Lucas Dixon notifications@github.com wrote:

Let's update socks-rtc to v0.3.2 of freedom, using freedom-chrome-runtime.

Trevor you OK to take this?

-- from mobile, please forgive typos. On Mar 4, 2014 6:00 PM, "Will" notifications@github.com wrote:

I'd prefer for this to stay in v0.3, given that I just put the work into setting up canonical places for the providers to live so that we don't end up with 3 different versions of the providers like we did with the chrome socket provider. Do we need to do that again with the new provider?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/UWNetworksLab/freedom/pull/52#issuecomment-36702563> .

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/UWNetworksLab/freedom/pull/52#issuecomment-36708584> .

Trevor Johnston Software Engineer, Google New York

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/UWNetworksLab/freedom/pull/52#issuecomment-36708904 .

UWNetworksLab / freedom

add interface for core.udpsocket #52