Clarify start_serving(). Add a section on coroutines and protocols.

pep-3156.txt

@@ -224,14 +224,35 @@ Some methods return Futures:
   TBD: Signature.  Do we pass in a protocol or protocol class?
 
 - ``start_serving(...)``.  Enters a loop that accepts connections.
-  TBD: Signature.  This definitely takes a protocol class.  Do we pass
+  TBD: Signature.  There are two possibilities:
-  in a non-blocking socket that's already bound and listening, or do
+
-  we pass in arguments that let it create and configure the socket
+  1. You pass it a non-blocking socket that you have already prepared
-  properly?  (E.g. the event loop may know a better default backlog
+     with ``bind()`` and ``listen()`` (these system calls do not block
-  value for ``listen()`` than the typical application developer.)
+     AFAIK), a protocol factory (I hesitate to use this word :-), and
-  TBD: What does it return?  Something we can use to stop accepting
+     optional flags that control the transport creation (e.g. ssl).
-  without stopping the event loop?  A Future that completes when the
+
-  socket is successfully accepting connections?
+  2. Instead of a socket, you pass it a host and port, and some more
+     optional flags (e.g. to control IPv4 vs IPv6, or to set the
+     backlog value to be passed to ``listen()``).
+
+  In either case, once it has a socket, it will wrap it in a
+  transport, and then enter a loop accepting connections (the best way
+  to implement such a loop depends on the platform).  Each time a
+  connection is accepted, a transport and protocol are created for it.
+
+  This should return an object that can be used to control the serving
+  loop, e.g. to stop serving, abort all active connections, and (if
+  supported) adjust the backlog or other parameters.  It may also have
+  an API to inquire about active connections.  If version (2) is
+  selected, it should probably return a Future whose result on success
+  will be that control object, and which becomes done once the accept
+  loop is started.
+
+  TBD: It may be best to use version (2), since on some platforms the
+  best way to start a server may not involve sockets (but will still
+  involve transports and protocols).
+
+  TBD: Be more specific.
 
 The following methods for registering callbacks for file descriptors
 are optional.  If they are not implemented, accessing the method
@@ -515,7 +536,7 @@ Protocols
 ---------
 
 Protocols are always used in conjunction with transports.  While a few
-common protocols are provided (e.g. decent though not necessary
+common protocols are provided (e.g. decent though not necessarily
 excellent HTTP client and server implementations), most protocols will
 be implemented by user code or third-party libraries.
 
@@ -588,6 +609,9 @@ it is perfectly fine to write code using callbacks only.  On the other
 hand, there is only one implementation of the scheduler/coroutine API,
 and if you're using coroutines, that's the one you're using.
 
+Coroutines
+----------
+
 A coroutine is a generator that follows certain conventions.  For
 documentation purposes, all coroutines should be decorated with
 ``@tulip.coroutine``, but this cannot be strictly enforced.
@@ -595,8 +619,8 @@ documentation purposes, all coroutines should be decorated with
 Coroutines use the ``yield from`` syntax introduced in PEP 380,
 instead of the original ``yield`` syntax.
 
-Unfortunately, the word "coroutine", like the word "generator", is
+The word "coroutine", like the word "generator", is used for two
-used for two different (though related) concepts:
+different (though related) concepts:
 
 - The function that defines a coroutine (a function definition
   decorated with ``tulip.coroutine``).  If disambiguation is needed,
@@ -678,6 +702,23 @@ implemented by the ``Task`` and ``Future`` classes using only the
 public interface of the event loop, so it will work with third-party
 event loop implementations, too.
 
+Coroutines and Protocols
+------------------------
+
+The best way to use coroutines to implement protocols is probably to
+use a streaming buffer that gets filled by ``data_received()`` and can
+be read asynchronously using methods like ``read(n)`` and
+``readline()`` that return a Future.  When the connection is closed,
+``read()`` should return a Future whose result is ``b''``, or raise an
+exception if ``connection_closed()`` is called with an exception.
+
+To write, the ``write()`` method (and friends) on the transport can be
+used -- these do not return Futures.  A standard protocol
+implementation should be provided that sets this up and kicks off the
+coroutine when ``connection_made()`` is called.
+
+TBD: Be more specific.
+
 
 Open Issues
 ===========
@@ -722,7 +763,7 @@ Open Issues
   syntax).  Anyway, I think all of these are easy enough to write
   using ``Task``.
 
-- Priorities?
+- Task or callback priorities?  (I hope not.)
 
 
 Acknowledgments