On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 11:55:54AM +0000, Tomer Heber wrote:
>
> 1. When using bufferevents I pass a class/struct as a "ctx/opaque" for each
> bufferevent.
> From the book:
> "Bufferevents are internally reference-counted, so if the bufferevent has
> pending deferred callbacks when you free it, it won't be deleted until the
> callbacks are done."
>
> In my code I do the following:
> bufferevent_free(bev);
> delete ctx;
>
> What worries my is the following scenario:
> I call bufferevent_free and release the ctx as well. But since the
> bufferevent has some pending events a callback will be called and the ctx
> will be invalid (since it was already released when I invoked the delete
> command).
>
> I was considering doing the following
>
> bufferevent_setcb(bev, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>
> bufferevent_free(bev);
> delete ctx;
>
> Will it work?
>
That would work fine.
> bufferevent_set_timeouts(bev, NULL, {20, 0})
The read timeout is infinite, the write timeout is 20 seconds.
>
> Is it valid? The timeout will only be set for write?
>
>
Yes.
> D) From the book:
>
> "When a read or write timeout occurs, the corresponding read or write
> operation becomes disabled on the bufferevent. The event callback is then
> invoked with either BEV_EVENT_TIMEOUT|BEV_EVENT_READING or
> BEV_EVENT_TIMEOUT|BEV_EVENT_WRITING."
>
>
> Is it ok to re-enable the buffevent.
>
> E.g. EV_EVENT_TIMEOUT|BEV_EVENT_READING event was invoked.
>
> So I execute:
>
> bufferevent_enable(bev, EV_READ) It is okay?
>
Yes, in-fact you have to (if you want to in-fact keepr eading). an event type of
EV_READ|EV_TIMEOUT will disable the read-side of the bev before passing to your
eventcb.
>
> Sorry for all these questions... I just don't want to do mistakes/bad design
> decisions without fully understanding how libevent works.
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Tomer.
>
>
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to [email protected] with
unsubscribe libevent-users in the body.
