apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] we need to init _unknown?
Date Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:36:53 GMT
Joe Orton wrote:
> 
> If the socket is bound to 0.0.0.0 then the local address of the socket 
> *is* known to be 0.0.0.0.  There is no need to call getsockname() to 
> confirm that later, it can't change until _connect() is called, at which 
> point the existing code does already DTRT by setting the "unknown" flag 
> iff necessary.

How does that differ from the port being 0 == unknown in bind?

Port 0 is ephemeral.  IP 0.0.0.0 is ephemeral.  I'm just not groking this
design pattern (using the word design somewhat losely :)  Why is the
port_unknown set here then?

The IP isn't 0.0.0.0, it's in fact a set of addresses of all of the bound
adapters to 0.0.0.0.  The current API doesn't lend itself very well though
to untangling this.

Mime
View raw message