Every time I read that code I get scared. But the code already uses non-blocking IO. From memory it does: 1) set socket options for non-blocking 2) try read/write and return if operation completes 3) set alarm 4) set socket options for blocking 5) retry read/write
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Brian Aker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > Paul's observations in his blog yesterday on VIO using alarms caught my > attention. It has been a while since I looked at VIO and while it is a back > burner debate I have always thought that it should behave more async like > then what it does today. > > To that end I am going to be removing the alarms bits around sockets and > just beefing it up to instead use non-block IO under the same manner that we > did for libmemcached (and in memcached). Does anyone see why this should be > optional? I can certainly see making the timeout optional but the use of > non-block just seems obvious. > > Any opinions? > > Cheers, > -Brian > > BTW from comments I think that alarm was added for mit-pthread... time far > long ago before we had solid non-block across most platforms. > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org > Seattle, Washington > http://krow.net/ <-- Me > http://tangent.org/ <-- Software > _______________________________________________________ > You can't grep a dead tree. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Mark Callaghan [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
