yes, i'm still trying to find a real situation where this would be critical. i asked go-nuts list for production examples at the same time as the start of this thread. no answers yet.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:31 AM Charles Forsyth <charles.fors...@gmail.com> wrote: > it's also funny that the rationale seems to be to pass the same > conformance test for Go that once had it added to Inferno so it would pass > a Java test but it was never otherwise used for reasons already given, so I > took it out again. > > On 4 February 2017 at 10:11, Charles Forsyth <charles.fors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I did once have a use for this in an o/s of mine, in a sort of network > pipe to servers, but it was so variably implemented by other systems (data > was flushed, or not) I gave it up as not particularly useful in practice, > except between two known systems that did what you wanted. > > On 4 February 2017 at 09:58, Charles Forsyth <charles.fors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 4 February 2017 at 01:56, Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkol...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Shutting down the write-end (i.e. 'shut_wr'), should send FIN, and > transition to Finwait1. > > > i'd make it a "read" or "write" parameter to the existing "hangup" > message. older implementations that don't accept the parameter will give an > error on the request because the current tcp.c doesn't accept a parameter > > > >
