On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:33 PM, Guyren Howe wrote: > On Apr 18, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Charles Yeomans wrote: > >> Of course, the best solution is not to use use sockets synchronously. > > I don't agree with that as a blanket statement. If this is a quick > and dirty application, or the logic is such that splitting it up > between the events on the socket and other places is a pita to get > correct, I say do whatever's easiest. Make the computer work harder, > if it means you work easier.
My experience is that not using sockets synchronously is easiest in the long run. Charles Yeomans _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
