I was playing around with Pipelines.Sockets.Unofficial.MemoryMappedPipeReader this morning, and I'd like to share some feedback from my experience:
Nothing seems to have a finalizer, so those pointers we acquire won't go away unless the consumer explicitly disposes the MemoryMappedPipeReader (ideally, see the remarks and make sure that ReleasePointer is always called in a CER (see CriticalFinalizerObject), though just making sure it's released in a finalizer may be good enough... probably nobody's going to hunt you down if you assume that people won't be regularly aborting threads or unloading app domains).
The return type of MemoryMappedPipeReader.Create does not implement IDisposable, so most people may not even realize that they're supposed to dispose this.
CreateFromFile throws an exception if file.Length is 0... probably just fall back in this case too.
We access the SafeBuffer on UnmanagedMemoryAccessor through reflection (and fall back all the way to the FileStream approach if that's impossible), but wouldn't it be equivalent to go through MemoryMappedViewAccessor.SafeMemoryMappedViewHandle? From my reading of the code, it looks like that would even be the same object instance.
I was playing around with
Pipelines.Sockets.Unofficial.MemoryMappedPipeReaderthis morning, and I'd like to share some feedback from my experience:MemoryMappedPipeReader(ideally, see the remarks and make sure thatReleasePointeris always called in a CER (seeCriticalFinalizerObject), though just making sure it's released in a finalizer may be good enough... probably nobody's going to hunt you down if you assume that people won't be regularly aborting threads or unloading app domains).MemoryMappedPipeReader.Createdoes not implementIDisposable, so most people may not even realize that they're supposed to dispose this.CreateFromFilethrows an exception iffile.Lengthis 0... probably just fall back in this case too.SafeBufferonUnmanagedMemoryAccessorthrough reflection (and fall back all the way to theFileStreamapproach if that's impossible), but wouldn't it be equivalent to go throughMemoryMappedViewAccessor.SafeMemoryMappedViewHandle? From my reading of the code, it looks like that would even be the same object instance.