On 18-Apr-07, at 2:29 PM, Charles Yeomans wrote: > > 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.
Some tasks (like database interactions) are predicated on normally synchronous activity. Calling SQLSelect and at some point in the future getting results makes writing a client server app much harder than it needs to be. I'd be willing to bet that anyone using a database depends on SQLSelect behaving synchronously. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
