Quoting Neil Lunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Michael Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> >I seem to get intermittent socket timeout problems with perl's LWP
> >(libwww-perl). I unfortunately cannot reproduce the problem reliably,
> >so debugging it is almost impossible. Even if I supply a large
> timeout
> >value (300 s), LWP sometimes returns a timeout immediately.
> >
> >In /usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1/cygwin/IO/Socket.pm, the connect subroutine
> >sets $sock->blocking(0) if there is a timeout value. (Shouldn't a
> >timeout value turn blocking on?)
>
> For starters this is IO::Socket. What does that have to do with the code
> in
> LWP?
> Secondly this is a *.pm file and the code is in perl. What does this
> have to
> do with a platform (ie cygwin)?
>
> Yes I realise the dependancies in LWP and so would most people so "Why
> write
> this?"
First, the IO::Socket module is in the cygwin directory
underneath /usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1. It is a platform-specific module.
> Looking at the dependancy paths you can complain about IO::Socket,
> IO::Handle modules if you want but I see little point in complaining
> about
> LWP or Cygwin.
I don't think it's a bug in LWP, since this bug also occurs in Net::SMTP and
Net::POP3 under Cygwin. And I haven't heard of it occuring under any platform.
I am providing a workaround for a problem, which at first glance appears to be
with LWP, and is actually probably somewhere else. When I experienced this
problem, I thought to search the mailing list for LWP to see if anyone else had
experienced it (finding nothing useful), and not IO::Socket until I had delved
deep into the code already.
I never "complained" about Cygwin or LWP. I identified a problem and a possible
solution.
> The IO::Handle documentation clearly says that $obj->blocking(0) is
> non-blocking IO
> IO::Socket clearly has the line $obj->blocking(0) if $timeout
>
> I would suggest that in all cases the Authors know exactly what they
> mean.
> If you disagree take it up with them. But I would generally say that
> when
> you don't maintain a piece of code it is not very good community spirit
> to
> go out and say "The Author is wrong and I'm right, so everybody change
> their
> code". The Timeout option is there for a reason, it's an option. You
> don't
> tell everybody "You no longer have an option".
A one character change to that LWP module will save changes to any of your
scripts and modules that use LWP. This isn't the "correct" way to do things,
but I expect you will exemplify "good community spirit" for providing us with a
patch to wherever the problem really is, instead of flaming me for suggesting a
workaround.
This workaround is just that--a workaround. I'm not suggesting that the source
or distribution be changed, since the underlying bug appears to be somewhere
else, so I apologize if I created confusion by using the word "patch" once for
this kludge. Two people have publicly thanked me for this (see links below), so
it's obviously helping someone. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2001-08/msg00777.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02862.html
--
Michael Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The University of Texas at Austin
