William Ahern wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 01:43:48PM -0000, Toby Douglass wrote:
However, the example I had in mind (which is similar) is P2P apps, which
use writes on a single local UDP socket to send peering information to
peers. They would benefit from async writes on that socket.
Writing to a UDP socket should never block, period. If the output buffer is
full, and you write another message, it should force the stack to drop a
message.
Good point. I'd forgotten about that.
But, that could just as well have happened on the wire, so what's
the difference?
It would be more reliable not to fail locally if you could avoid it.
The fact it *could* happen on the wire doesn't give us license to drop
things when we could have avoided it.
Likely what the NIC can push out and what the link can
handle is different, so trying to cater to the output buffer is a futile
excercise, as far as I can see.
So, the final implication is that users will ONLY ever perform serial
writes on a socket, no matter what it is?
_______________________________________________
Libevent-users mailing list
Libevent-users@monkey.org
http://monkey.org/mailman/listinfo/libevent-users
