Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add jitter buffer #158
Add jitter buffer #158
Changes from all commits
434974f
901fe91
d07c38c
086dbf7
5312ba3
47befa5
0fc33f0
f8a378f
4c330aa
babf6db
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we could replace this by
started?
boolean and changingmaybe_set_timer
toget_next_timeout
.Just return time to the next action.
if we also decide that the latency for the first packet is not needed we could simplify this further into
Does it make sense to you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not differentiating between having the timer set and unset means we'll be telling the user to set a timer every time a packet is inserted, which to me seems quite unnecessary and wasteful when it can easily be avoided with just a few lines of code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
PS I love that you chose to include the typespec for the private function here :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be precise, every time when usser inserts something and we are waiting for some packet. In most cases, when packets are ordered, we will immediately flush them.
Anyway, this indeed might not be the bes UX, I didn't notice that earlier 🤔
On the other hand, right now, if someone calls handle_timeout too early, they will get
nil
as timer and will think everything is okayThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, you're correct, my bad
I don't see how that would happen, we're changing the buffer state to
:timer_not_set
immediately afterhandle_timeout
is called, so all of the timer-setting code is being executed