On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:03 PM, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > I was thinking about an alternate solution, using blocking sockets,
>> > and doing the connect on another thread. If the user cancels the
>> > operation I'd close the socket (BIO_free) and I guess the connect
>> > wo
> > I was thinking about an alternate solution, using blocking sockets,
> > and doing the connect on another thread. If the user cancels the
> > operation I'd close the socket (BIO_free) and I guess the connect
> > would return with an error and the thread would exit then. Seems a
> > little dirty
> I was thinking about an alternate solution, using blocking sockets,
> and doing the connect on another thread. If the user cancels the
> operation I'd close the socket (BIO_free) and I guess the connect
> would return with an error and the thread would exit then. Seems a
> little dirty but it co
Michael S. Zick wrote:
> On Fri October 24 2008, David Schwartz wrote:
>>
> - - - -
>>
>> Notice how this assumes that if BIO_sock_error returns zero, the connection
>> completed? This is a bogus inference. The absence of an error just means the
>> connection attempt has not failed *yet* and tells
On Fri October 24 2008, David Schwartz wrote:
>
- - - -
>
> Notice how this assumes that if BIO_sock_error returns zero, the connection
> completed? This is a bogus inference. The absence of an error just means the
> connection attempt has not failed *yet* and tells you nothing about how it
> wil
Gabriel Soto wrote:
> {
> // Create BIO with some random nonexistent host.
> BIO *bio = BIO_new_connect("192.168.9.9:");
>
> if (bio == NULL) {
> // Failed to obtain BIO.
> return false;
> }
>
> // Set as non-blocking.
> BIO_set_nbio(bio, 1);
>
> //
Gabriel Soto wrote:
>
> Greetings.
> I'm a noob trying to code a simple TCP client (Windows, MinGW, OpenSSL
> 0.9.8g). Since it has a GUI, I have to go with non-blocking sockets.
>
> I'm supplying a nonexistent host to test a failure but this is what happens:
> A first call to connect returns natu
