apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthew Emmerton" <m...@gsicomp.on.ca>
Subject Re: win32/apr_socket_recv() vs others...
Date Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:58:39 GMT
Perhaps a comment to this effect should be committed to the code to avoid
this question from coming up in the future.

--
Matt Emmerton

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Nicholes" <BNICHOLES@novell.com>
To: <dev@apr.apache.org>; <trawick@attglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: win32/apr_socket_recv() vs others...


> Ah, you are right.  apr_socket_timeout_set() sets the send and receive
> timeouts which are then handled by winsock.  Therefore apr_socket_recv()
> doesn't need any additional wait code.  That's the information I
> needed.
>
> thanks
>
> Brad Nicholes
> Senior Software Engineer
> Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
> http://www.novell.com
>
> >>> Jeff Trawick <trawick@attglobal.net> Monday, January 27, 2003
> 4:47:44 PM >>>
> Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
> >     When I compare the win32 implementation of apr_socket_recv()
> against
> > other implementations, one thing seems to jump out.  On all other
> > platforms the apr_socket_recv() function calls
> > apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout() if recv() returns and EWOULDBLOCK and
> there
> > is a timeout specified in the sock structure.  In the Win32
> > implementation any timeout value in the sock structure is simply
> > ignored.  Is there a reason for this or is it an oversight?
>
>
> I see that Mr. Rowe has answered differently already, but I thought the
>
> answer was this:
>
> When the timeout is set (and stored in apr_socket_t), a Win32 socket
> option is set so that the Windows kernel handles the timeout without
> APR
> having to use multiple syscalls to perform the same function.
>


Mime
View raw message