2010/1/4 Doriano Blengino <doriano.bleng...@fastwebnet.it>: > This is the TCP scenario: you send data, and don't know what the hell > those data have done - only that it is arrived. Never tried to speak FTP > to a server which talks HTTP? Or to speak HTTP to a CIFS server?
Yes, I have. Many, many times. > There > must be a higher protocol, like your example below, which copes with > requests and replies. :) I see we are on the right track, together. >> Without a timeout I cannot create more than a single socket and be >> certain that the remote server will accept it. I would be very happy >> if socket (Socket and ServerSocket) accepted timeouts and raised >> errors when the connection timed out, where timeout means a period of >> time where there is no activity while a send or receive is in >> progress. That, btw, is why Linux socket implements both a send and a >> receive timeout. >> > Mmm, I think that trying to establish a connection is different than > trying to send data to an already established one. They are different, but I expect they could both use the same send_timeout. > But I agree > on the fact that some form of timeout must be in effect, at least for > good precaution. That is really good news, Doriano. I have enjoyed this discussion with you and Benoit. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Gambas-user mailing list Gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user
