[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support.
From: |
Helmut Eller |
Subject: |
Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support. |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:38:55 +0100 |
address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:
> Below is the doc-string for make-network-process which is a keyword
> based replacement for the built-in open-network-stream. I already
> implemented most of the code handling this, and it looks quite clean
> compared to the previous version.
>
> IMO, this it by far the best proposal for the API so far.
Yes. This looks very good now.
> :nowait BOOL -- Don't wait for client process to complete the
> connection to the server if BOOL is non-nil; instead, the sentinel
> function will be called with second matching "open" (if successful) or
> "failed" when the connect completes. Default is to use a blocking
> connect.
I would prefer :wait that defaults to t. Is shorter and avoids the
negation.
> Notice that the FILTER and SENTINEL args are never used directly by
> the server process. Also, the BUFFER argument is not used directly by
> the server process, but via `network-server-log-function' hook, a log
> of the accepted (and failed) connections may be recorded in the server
> process' buffer.
network-server-log-function is a global variable. This may cause
problems when used by independent packages. Is it a problem to make
this an attribute of the server process? E.g. as :log-function
argument?
> The following special call returns t iff a given KEY VALUE
> pair is supported on this system:
> (make-network-process :feature KEY VALUE) */)
Hmm... this looks a bit strange. Can you give some examples?
Especially, what do you supply as VALUE?
> > Because there is currently no way to get the IP address(es) of the
> > current host. It MAY also simplify the C level implementation,
> > because you could require that e.g. the SERVICE argument is actually a
> > port number and not a string or a number; similar for the HOST
> > argument.
> >
> I don't think this is necessary, so I'll leave that for a future
> enhancement. To restrict connections to the local host, I suggest
> using either "localhost" for the HOST or as local (UNIX) socket.
It was indented to implement protocols like DCC. But it is better to
leave this for the feature.
> Ok, but as you mention yourself, this is the exception, so it
> shouldn't be the standard behaviour. I will take a look at using
> stop-process and start-process to temporarily inhibit a server socket
> from accepting connections. If you can use stop-process in
> the sentinel, this seems to be a cleaner solution than
> having to (re-)enable the server by calling accept-connection.
OK. I will not bother you again :-)
Thanks for all your work, Kim.
Helmut.
- Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., (continued)
- Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/13
- Re: Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Al Petrofsky, 2002/03/13
- Re: Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/14
- Re: Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Richard Stallman, 2002/03/14
- Re: Final(?) patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/14
- I have installed the patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/17
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Helmut Eller, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Helmut Eller, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support.,
Helmut Eller <=
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/08
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Helmut Eller, 2002/03/08
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/08
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/08
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Stefan Monnier, 2002/03/08
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Richard Stallman, 2002/03/08
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/13
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Mario Lang, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Kim F. Storm, 2002/03/07
- Re: New patch for server sockets and datagram (UDP) support., Richard Stallman, 2002/03/08