NFD » ndn-cxx

The existing producer example in ndn-cxx doesn't shut down its face, except in response to a prefix registration error, where Face::unsetInterestFilter() would be of no use. Does it need to be modified at all?

Also, I can't find any specific references to Face::shutdown() in the ndn-cxx documentation. Even so, we should probably add something about the proper way to shut down a face on a producer.

Eric Newberry wrote:

Also, I can't find any specific references to Face::shutdown() in the ndn-cxx documentation.

You mean besides the doxygen[1]? What other doc do we have?
[1] http://named-data.net/doc/ndn-cxx/current/doxygen/d9/d55/classndn_1_1Face.html#a94cece651790f2b3e140ed157667587e

Even so, we should probably add something about the proper way to shut down a face on a producer.

Yes, we should.

“Waiting for processEvents() to exit” isn’t a proper solution when multiple faces are tied to the same io_service. Is there another way?
I’m suspecting the m_transport.close() line in Face::asyncShutdown(). StreamTransportImpl::close() clears the transmission queue, and packets could be lost there.

Junxiao Shi wrote:

“Waiting for processEvents() to exit” isn’t a proper solution when multiple faces are tied to the same io_service. Is there another way?
I’m suspecting the m_transport.close() line in Face::asyncShutdown(). StreamTransportImpl::close() clears the transmission queue, and packets could be lost there.

So do we need to modify the code to prevent this issue, instead of just shifting to unsetInterestFilter?

Junxiao Shi wrote:

“Waiting for processEvents() to exit” isn’t a proper solution when multiple faces are tied to the same io_service.

Is there a use case for employing multiple Face instances in the same application? If an application really wants to do what you're saying, it should call run()/stop()/reset()/etc.. on the io_service directly, and not use Face::processEvents() and shutdown().