I have done some extensive testing with read() using tcp and it seems to be working great.
Thanks, Seamus On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Bernie Bright wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:23:30 -0600 > "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Curtis L. Olson writes: > > > Bernie Bright writes: > > > > SGSocket::readline() and SGSocket::read() do act differently. For a > > > > server, readline() correctly handles the accept and reads from the new > > > > socket. read() also handles the accept but reads from the master > > > > socket. I'm not sure if this is intentional or if its a bug. > > > > > > Someone else wrote in reporting a problem here. THey also said that > > > reading from the new socket fixed the problem in read(). If it seems > > > to make sense, maybe we should make read() read from the new socket? > > > > It looks like readline() uses sock.recv() for UDP style sockets and > > client->recv() for tcp style sockets. I will make read() work the > > same way and hope I don't break anything. Judging from style and lack > > of familiarity, I don't think it was me who wrote the code. > > I think I'm responsible for the current code. I remember rewriting it using > plib.net a couple of years ago. I agree that read() should work the same as > readline() but I don't remember why it wasn't so in the first place. > > Bernie > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
