On 6/24/05, Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeff Trawick wrote: > > >On 6/24/05, Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>I would like to look at extending the timeout API, creating a new > >>version that leaves a socket in its original state (blocking or > >>non-blocking), but still implements the Timeouts. The SO_SNDTIMEO and > >>O_RCVTIMEO socketopts can do exactly this. For platforms that do not > >>support them, we can emulate it but toggling to non-blocking, and using > >>apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout, just like we do now, and then reseting the > >>socket to its original state. > >> > >> > > > >Why do you need a different timeout API? It either works or it > >doesn't. Provide an implementation of send*/receive*/sockopt APIs > >that can use SO_SNDTIMEO/O_RCVTIMEO, and enable it carefully. > > > > > > > Because some applications might rely upon the API setting a socket to > blocking or non-blocking based on the timeout.
They wouldn't work on Windows anyway, FWIW. > It is documented to behave in this way, Where?
