Skip to content

Conversation

@lebauce
Copy link
Contributor

@lebauce lebauce commented Jan 12, 2015

No description provided.

@smira smira modified the milestone: v0.9 Jan 12, 2015
@smira
Copy link
Contributor

smira commented Jan 24, 2015

I believe this is really good start (thanks, @lebauce), but it would require more work on downloading part: it is not great that downloading happens while mirror update call is running. Probably there should be some separate API to control download progress/status.

I would move this to 0.10 so that 0.9 would happen sooner or later.

@smira smira modified the milestones: v0.10, v0.9 Jan 24, 2015
@sliverc
Copy link
Contributor

sliverc commented Nov 16, 2016

Concerning the download progress/status challenge:
I am working on an API which allows queuing of tasks and each task can update its own status/progress. The idea is all API calls which need a write lock will be queued into this queue and processed one by one. A separate API call can then be made to check the progress of a task.

An experimental and unfinished implementation you can find here https://github.com/sliverc/aptly/tree/queuing_api

Open tasks I am currently working on:

  • Writers on API should not block out readers (rewriting of locking needed)
  • Rewriting of api PUT, DELETE, POST calls to use queue

This is an idea on how to approach the issue of long API calls which would make it possible to implement this mirror api PR more easily.

@smira smira removed this from the v0.10 milestone Mar 27, 2017
@virullius
Copy link

I am quite eager for a mirrors api, is this generally safe to use? Should updating a mirror via this API be avoided or is it simply a sub-optimal interface to the long running process?

@smira
Copy link
Contributor

smira commented Mar 31, 2017

I didn't check the code, I think the biggest issue mirror update, as it might take considerable amount of time, and blocking in API call doesn't make sense.

This was referenced May 22, 2017
@virullius virullius mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2018
@sliverc
Copy link
Contributor

sliverc commented May 17, 2018

Closing in favor of #573

@sliverc sliverc closed this May 17, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants