Thanks Florian, I need to go back and read Steven's more closely ;-) . I have no doubt you are correct, but have never seen a close overtake the data -- we should of course do it right.
In such tests I would usually have a trivial protocol (i.e. sending a fixed-size length field first) so that the reader knows much to keep reading. Regards, Tim Florian Weimer wrote: > * Tim Ellison: > >> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the flow of the test here. >> >> here's how I read it... >> >> Server Side Client Side >> ----------- ----------- >> 'server' listens on 1234 >> 'channel' connects >> 'server' accepts >> 'out' sends 2xCAPACITY bytes >> 'out' flushes >> 'out' closes server end >> 'channel' reads in loop until -1 >> assert that channel gets 2xCAPACITY bytes >> >> >> Is that right? > > In this case, the effects of the close operation can overtake the > data. You need the equivalent of shutdown(SHUT_WR) or > shutdown(SHUT_RDWR), or use some other form of synchronization. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
