On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 12:59 -0500, Martin Peach wrote: > Hi Roman, > I think it probably comes down to the code not checking for all possible > error conditions.
cool, if it would be as simple as that. > Under udp you can send as much as you like to > nonexistent receivers but tcp needs an active connection. > Most likely the code is just assuming that everything is working properly. > It sounds as though data being sent to a client whose connection has > just dropped but before it has timed out, will go into nevernever land > and the thread will hang. where is neverneverland? i mean, in tcp protocol, the receiver has to confirm, that it received the messages, so i guess, the sender needs to keep all the messages, that were sent to the vanished client, but were never confirmed, right? > It would be nice to have a setup that could reliably reproduce the bug, > then it would be much easier to fix. Probably having 2 machines > connected and pulling the cable out of one at the right moment should do it. > Anyway I'll stop speculating now and have a look at the code... let me try some test setups, though i think one needs to have at least two computers in order to trigger the problem. it would be just awesome, if this long-standing issue could be fixed. roman ___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list