On 4/24/07, Anders Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - I think the ksock_callback_t passed to ksock_accept() is slightly > confusing. Is it really necessary for an accepted socket to > immediately have callbacks? It would be more straightforward if the > thread calling ksock_accept() simply called ksock_callback() upon its > return. The issue with that is that an event might be missed, and the user would have to check for "pending" events after registering the callbacks. The current approach allows the user to do what you want by simply passing in NULL for the last two arguments. Another approach would be to provide two versions of accept; one that has the "regular" accept behavior, and another that allows for callback registration.
This yeilds another question then. When I add a callback function to an existing socket using ksock_callback() do I not get notification of pending events? I.e. if the socket is connected and already has data, do I not get told about that? Paul -- Paul Durrant http://www.linkedin.com/in/pdurrant _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
