From 125bb613a7c7fbbd2fb78044c104abce8a020b2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Tristan B. Velloza Kildaire" <deavmi@redxen.eu>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 17:01:52 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Receiver

- Removed `hasEnsured` (commented-out already)
- Call `ensure(this)` in constructor
- Removed TODOs relating to ensurance

Sender

- Removed `hasEnsured` (commented-out already)
- Call `ensure(this)` in constructor
- Removed TODOs relating to ensurance
---
 source/birchwood/client/receiver.d | 27 +++------------------------
 source/birchwood/client/sender.d   | 28 +---------------------------
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)

diff --git a/source/birchwood/client/receiver.d b/source/birchwood/client/receiver.d
index a847660..80d63ff 100644
--- a/source/birchwood/client/receiver.d
+++ b/source/birchwood/client/receiver.d
@@ -48,7 +48,6 @@ public final class ReceiverThread : Thread
      * to be processed and received
      */
     private Event receiveEvent;
-    // private bool hasEnsured;
 
     /** 
      * The associated IRC client
@@ -67,7 +66,8 @@ public final class ReceiverThread : Thread
         super(&recvHandlerFunc);
         this.client = client;
         this.receiveEvent = new Event(); // TODO: Catch any libsnooze error here
-        this.recvQueueLock = new Mutex();        
+        this.recvQueueLock = new Mutex();
+        this.receiveEvent.ensure(this);
     }
 
     // TODO: Rename to `receiveQ`
@@ -89,10 +89,6 @@ public final class ReceiverThread : Thread
         /* Unlock queue */
         recvQueueLock.unlock();
 
-        // TODO: Add a "register" function which can initialize pipes
-        // ... without needing a wait, we'd need a ready flag though
-        // ... for receiver's thread start
-
         /** 
          * Wake up all threads waiting on this event
          * (if any, and if so it would only be the receiver)
@@ -116,21 +112,6 @@ public final class ReceiverThread : Thread
         {
             // TODO: We could look at libsnooze wait starvation or mutex racing (future thought)
 
-
-            // // Do a once-off call to `ensure()` here which then only runs once and
-            // // ... sets a `ready` flag for the Client to spin on. This ensures that
-            // // ... when the first received messages will be able to cause a wait
-            // // ... to immediately unblock rather than letting wait() register itself
-            // // ... and then require another receiveQ call to wake it up and process
-            // // ... the initial n messages + m new ones resulting in the second call
-            // if(hasEnsured == false)
-            // {
-            //     receiveEvent.ensure();
-            //     hasEnsured = true;
-            // }
-
-            // TODO: See above notes about libsnooze behaviour due
-            // ... to usage in our context
             try
             {
                 receiveEvent.wait();
@@ -152,9 +133,7 @@ public final class ReceiverThread : Thread
                 }
                 continue;
             }
-            
-
-            
+                        
 
             /* Lock the receieve queue */
             recvQueueLock.lock();
diff --git a/source/birchwood/client/sender.d b/source/birchwood/client/sender.d
index 0de1df0..d60f8b0 100644
--- a/source/birchwood/client/sender.d
+++ b/source/birchwood/client/sender.d
@@ -40,7 +40,6 @@ public final class SenderThread : Thread
      * to be processed and sent
      */
     private Event sendEvent;
-    // private bool hasEnsured;
 
     /** 
      * The associated IRC client
@@ -60,6 +59,7 @@ public final class SenderThread : Thread
         this.client = client;
         this.sendEvent = new Event(); // TODO: Catch any libsnooze error here
         this.sendQueueLock = new Mutex();
+        this.sendEvent.ensure(this);
     }
 
     // TODO: Rename to `sendQ`
@@ -81,10 +81,6 @@ public final class SenderThread : Thread
         /* Unlock queue */
         sendQueueLock.unlock();
 
-        // TODO: Add a "register" function which can initialize pipes
-        // ... without needing a wait, we'd need a ready flag though
-        // ... for sender's thread start
-
         /** 
          * Wake up all threads waiting on this event
          * (if any, and if so it would only be the sender)
@@ -92,7 +88,6 @@ public final class SenderThread : Thread
         sendEvent.notifyAll();
     }
 
-
     /** 
      * The send queue worker function
      */
@@ -100,24 +95,10 @@ public final class SenderThread : Thread
     {
         while(client.running)
         {
-            // // Do a once-off call to `ensure()` here which then only runs once and
-            // // ... sets a `ready` flag for the Client to spin on. This ensures that
-            // // ... when the first sent messages will be able to cause a wait
-            // // ... to immediately unblock rather than letting wait() register itself
-            // // ... and then require another sendQ call to wake it up and process
-            // // ... the initial n messages + m new ones resulting in the second call
-            // if(hasEnsured == false)
-            // {
-            //     sendEvent.ensure();
-            //     hasEnsured = true;
-            // }
-
             // TODO: We could look at libsnooze wait starvation or mutex racing (future thought)
 
             /* TODO: handle normal messages (xCount with fakeLagInBetween) */
 
-            // TODO: See above notes about libsnooze behaviour due
-            // ... to usage in our context
             try
             {
                 sendEvent.wait();
@@ -141,13 +122,6 @@ public final class SenderThread : Thread
             }
 
 
-
-
-            // TODO: After the above call have a once-off call to `ensure()` here
-            // ... which then only runs once and sets a `ready` flag for the Client
-            // ... to spin on
-
-
             /* Lock queue */
             sendQueueLock.lock();