Greg Thompson wrote:
i've just received confirmation from the author of the KAME resolution code
that it isn't at all thread safe:
Sure. As noted in name6.c, thread related stuff is not implemented yet.
Since our resolver code based on bind4 doesn't aware thread safeness,
all I can do
| i've just received confirmation from the author of the KAME resolution code
| that it isn't at all thread safe:
|
| Sure. As noted in name6.c, thread related stuff is not implemented yet.
| Since our resolver code based on bind4 doesn't aware thread safeness,
| all I can do now would be
: threadsafe name resolution
| i've just received confirmation from the author of the KAME resolution
code
| that it isn't at all thread safe:
|
| Sure. As noted in name6.c, thread related stuff is not implemented yet.
| Since our resolver code based on bind4 doesn't aware thread safeness,
| all I can
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 12:07:01PM -0600, Charles Randall wrote:
Is there a reason that ADNS won't work for this?
Firstly, adns doesn't do IPv6 (at least not yet, according to the
web page you gave).
Secondly, I'm not sure if it's thread safe (although being nice 'n
async it's not hard to use
From: Charles Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a reason that ADNS won't work for this?
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/adns/
in addition to the other reasons mentioned, it won't work for me because
it's not a part of the os. as an application developer, i'd expect the
basic
as long as nothing other than getipnodebyname and byaddr share resources
with those two, i'm safe if i just throw a mutex around my calls to
byname/addr. unfortuantely, this solution gets the "big suck" rating. if
the operating system ships with mechanisms that are documented as being
| Is there a reason that ADNS won't work for this?
|
| http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/adns/
Technically, no. Morally, it's GNU. :-)
--
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called
upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
--
7 matches
Mail list logo
