Skip to content
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

Discussion starter: Possible improvements to hello-camkes-2 tutorial. #33

Open
Ben-PH opened this issue Dec 2, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

Comments

@Ben-PH
Copy link
Contributor

Ben-PH commented Dec 2, 2019

Regarding this tutorial, I believe there is a chance to make some changes to improve the goals of having the tutorial around.

Following through the hello-camkes-2 tutorial, it asked for a lot of steps, without being explicit about how to confirm that you are progressing correctly. Being unfamiliar with a workflow that works well, it was unclear to me how and when to stop and validate work done up to a given point.

When I started over again, from the beginning of hello-camkes-2, I took a modified approach. In this approach I accomplished smaller things in smaller steps, validating each along the way. I would not move on to the next step until I was satisfied with the current

  1. Understand setting up producer/consumer events each side
  • confirmed through successful build
  1. Setup shared memory buffer
  • confirmed by printing it client-side
  1. Bring server into the equation
  • confirmed with a log message in the handler
  1. print the shared buffer
  2. modify shared buffer
  • confirmed by repeating the print
  1. signal the client
  • confirmed with a log message after the wait()
  1. print the same buffer again
  • Expect to see changes propagated from server

I did a similar work flow for the typed dataport.

@Ben-PH
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ben-PH commented Dec 2, 2019

This is my take. If it seems to strike a chord, I'm happy draft up some changes.

@lsf37
Copy link
Member

lsf37 commented Oct 22, 2021

This has gotten quite old and no reply, which is entirely undeserved. I think this is a very good idea. If you're still interested, we'd be keen so see a draft.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants