Clojurians Log v2

Hi, I’m writing a channel producer which continuously gets collections with hundreds of items each and puts the items one by one in the channel. I’d like to avoid these one-by-one puts by using cat as xf and have a single put expand an entire collection in the buffer, but there’s an open bug where a single take will execute the next pending put, so for each single take the buffer will grow by hundreds and there will be no backpressure: https://clojure.atlassian.net/browse/ASYNC-210. Any advice? This breaks the backpressure semantics entirely.

Can alts!! be worse than (<!! (go (alts! ...))) ? I could imagine that only the latter makes use of IOC macros, so the former cannot block on N "alts" with the same fairness/etc

I don't understand the question

alts!! can block on N alts

> alts!! can block on N alts yes, I have always perceived it that way. but now I'm encountering some weird issue my thinking is: how does alts!! achieve that that multi-blocking? generally, regular threads cannot do that. so I assume alts!! does some magic. now, is that magic strictly equivalent, or somehow worse to doing the work in a go ?

I think it's the exact same code iirc

so equivalent

I do not have all that context loaded in my head to answer definitively though

yeah, both cases route to the impl function do-alts

ace, thank you!

@vemv each op in an alts expr compete to flip a shared flag

Exactly one op will win and resume the thread/go

https://wingolog.org/archives/2017/06/29/a-new-concurrent-ml describes a select operation which is pretty roughly equivalent to what alts does. It can be read as a sort of high level abstract overview of core.async internals even though it isn't about clojure or core.async

and incidentally, alts is imo one of the killer features of core.async

What's everyone's general feeling on using core.async as a central message dispatch system, either via pub or mult? For example, having server sent events all come into one async channel to a clojurescript client, making one or more pubs/`mult`s on it, and passing those as a system component to ui components which can sub/`tap` as needed? My thought was that this might be able to replace something like re-frame's dispatch system. But I tried this out and found I end up getting tripped up a lot, and that the bugs have seemed particularly hard to track down and I'm curious if I'm "doing it wrong" or if this is just me having holes in my knowledge/experience/understanding with core.async to make these types of errors? My thinking now is that core.async is better to use as locally as possible, at the point where coordination between multiple streams are needed. Because in the alternative, taping locally a central mult. you make your local tap dependent on all other subscribers, because if any of them block so will it. Would anyone agree that exposing a mult or pub as a central system component is a bad idea? Or is this on me for not being diligent enough about my channels not blocking?