yeah, just being thorough :)
see discourse topic here https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/lwt-3-2-0-released-we-plan-to-change-lwt-bind/1337
Actually, I've learned them both.
Lwt_log is easier to start with; Logs is better to elaborate on )
Orbifx: i don't know, it's the default room created by gitter
two of the plots in this graph effectively compare performance of lwt 3.1.0 to 3.2.0 https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/pull/500#issuecomment-343535322
it looks unchanged
in my own measurements while making changes, the effects were something like small-percentage slowdowns of bind. given that bind is by far not the most common or time-intensive operation performed in an lwt program, i also expected there to be no real effect
@argent-smith i believe all the breaking changes are the ones listed in the changelog here https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/releases/tag/3.0.0, also you can see details here ocsigen/lwt#308
if anything else broke, it's an accident, and we are not aware of any such accidents
Orbifx Ocsigen*
smondet both are low traffic, but stuff still happens
Orbifx Anton Bachin (Gitter): is there a particular reason for choosing MIT? something tactical?
smondet Orbifx: my 2c: In Ocaml since linking is static, it cannot really be LGPL, it kinda has to be LGPL+Linking-exn. which is a hack that maybe some INRIA lawyer checked in like 1994, but that adds a ton weirdness to an already pretty crazy license (have you tried to read the LGPL itself?).
Orbifx smondet: I have read some of it and about it in the past. ALso, forgot that OCaml does static linking so I can see the issue
Orbifx: no really specific reason for choosing MIT. just several people have requested it, and i agree that LGPL + some exception is a strange license. even if the ocaml community is used to that, it creates questions for new users that are not from elsewhere in the ocaml community
i don't think Lwt gains anything by having a copyleft license in practice, but we gain clarity for users by switching to a permissive license
after that, the choice of MIT is kind of arbitrary
smondet: +1
Orbifx: by the way, we switched Bisect_ppx to MPL 2.0, because it seemed like a good license that has the best features of copyleft and permissive licenses
however, it seems complex and unfamiliar enough that people still have issues. my impression from that experiment is that since we don't intend to go after anyone anyway, it's best to switch Bisect_ppx to MIT at some point
Orbifx Given Lwt's functionality, I don't think it's critical either.
Hello Anton, I am experiencing some problems when providing a Lwt version of a relatively complex native communication library. In brief, it seams that a blocking I/O call on a function executed as Lwt_schedule.detach blocks anything else from progressing. I've worked around the problem, but I'd like to get to the bottom of this and understand what is causing this strange interaction. To this end, is there any place where I can see the things that a native library may do or don't. Like masking signals, etc. Thanks very much in advance!
great :) i assume you were using Lwt_preemptive.detach. there is nothing in Lwt itself that should prevent the thread from progressing, modulo any bugs in Lwt. Lwt_preemptive is ultimately a wrapper around ocaml's own threads. the biggest gotcha in it is probably that the default thread limit is 4 or something, which is not enough for many uses. we definitely want to document any other likely snags, so i'll be happy to look at that link :)
@bruce-ricard, @copy makes a good suggestion with alcotest :) here's a link: https://github.com/mirage/alcotest