At 20:15 24.07.2001 +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
I've come up with a patch based on the ideas and suggestion that
came up in this thread:
- Let the fd_set resource keep track of the highest socket; nuked
_select() first parameter and determine it ourself
- Swapped _set(), _clear() and
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 07:20:57PM +0200, Daniel Beulshausen wrote :
At 20:15 24.07.2001 +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
I've come up with a patch based on the ideas and suggestion that
came up in this thread:
- Let the fd_set resource keep track of the highest socket; nuked
_select()
At 23:25 25.07.2001 +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
It works fine!
I had another patch (which is obsolete now) which a) let the user
pass 0 (or NULL) for all fd set resources to socket_select()
(which is perfectly valid because that way you can wait a
i don't think this is needed, it would behave
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 12:12:43AM +0200, Daniel Beulshausen wrote :
At 23:25 25.07.2001 +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
It works fine!
I had another patch (which is obsolete now) which a) let the user
pass 0 (or NULL) for all fd set resources to socket_select()
(which is perfectly valid
At 20:15 24.07.2001 +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
I've come up with a patch based on the ideas and suggestion that
came up in this thread:
- Let the fd_set resource keep track of the highest socket; nuked
_select() first parameter and determine it ourself
- Swapped _set(), _clear() and
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 06:37:25PM -0700, Chris Vandomelen wrote :
At 20:15 24.07.2001 +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
I've come up with a patch based on the ideas and suggestion that
came up in this thread:
- Let the fd_set resource keep track of the highest socket; nuked
_select()
Looks good. But it doesn't matter if someone passes no sets into select():
if there are no sets, it essentially becomes a usleep().
Yes I know, I had another patch which took care of this. But
Daniels latest commit took care of everything, looks very good
now :)
I saw the patch :)
Just
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:16:05AM +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
Great :-)
So we're seeing this getting implemented soon ?
Volunteers, anyone ? :-))
Is this select stuff so brand new that it's okay to change the API?
If it is, we should do it quickly before too many people get to
play with
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:16:05AM +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
Great :-)
So we're seeing this getting implemented soon ?
Volunteers, anyone ? :-))
Is this select stuff so brand new that it's okay to change the API?
If it is, we should do it quickly before too many people get to
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:48:33AM -0700, Chris Vandomelen wrote :
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:16:05AM +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
Great :-)
So we're seeing this getting implemented soon ?
Volunteers, anyone ? :-))
Is this select stuff so brand new that it's okay to change
The new version (renamed, cleaned up) is fairly new, so it should be fine
to do that.
While we're at it, wouldn't it be more intuitiv to modify the
socket_fd_*() calls to accept the fd_set resource as first
parameter and the fd to add or remove as second parameter ?
No problem with that
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 08:34:44AM -0700, Chris Vandomelen wrote :
The new version (renamed, cleaned up) is fairly new, so it should be fine
to do that.
While we're at it, wouldn't it be more intuitiv to modify the
socket_fd_*() calls to accept the fd_set resource as first
Morning ...
Has anyone a working example on using the new socket_select()
call with non-blocking connection-oriented sockets? blocking
sockets with socket_accept() work like a charm. But I can't get
socket_select() to work.
That's because of the patches that were made. Try specifying
Thanks for the quick response!
Exactly that was what I thought. I've used system select() before
and I knew what I needed for the first parameter but heck I got
no idea from which var/fucntion to retrieve this value.
thanks !
- Markus
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 05:14:29AM -0700, Chris Vandomelen
At 05:14 23.07.2001 -0700, Chris Vandomelen wrote:
Morning ...
Has anyone a working example on using the new socket_select()
call with non-blocking connection-oriented sockets? blocking
sockets with socket_accept() work like a charm. But I can't get
socket_select() to work.
That's
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 07:20:34AM -0700, Chris Vandomelen wrote :
socket_select(0x7fff, $fd_set, 0, 0, 0, 0);
we can add a support function which return's the php_socket-socket integer.
Glad someone came up with this.
Since socket_select() always wants highest +1,
socket_select(0x7fff, $fd_set, 0, 0, 0, 0);
we can add a support function which return's the php_socket-socket integer.
Glad someone came up with this.
Since socket_select() always wants highest +1, couldn't this be
implemented into socket_select() to go through all socket sets
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 07:20:34AM -0700, Chris Vandomelen wrote :
socket_select(0x7fff, $fd_set, 0, 0, 0, 0);
we can add a support function which return's the php_socket-socket integer.
Glad someone came up with this.
Since socket_select() always wants highest +1,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 07:20:34AM -0700, Chris Vandomelen wrote :
socket_select(0x7fff, $fd_set, 0, 0, 0, 0);
we can add a support function which return's the php_socket-socket integer.
Glad someone came up with this.
Since socket_select() always wants highest
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] cvs socket extension
socket_select(0x7fff, $fd_set, 0, 0, 0, 0);
we can add a support function which return's the php_socket-socket integer.
Glad someone came up with this.
Since socket_select
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 11:15:49PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote :
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 05:16:13PM +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 07:20:34AM -0700, Chris Vandomelen wrote :
Since socket_select() always wants highest +1, couldn't this be
implemented into
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 11:57:44PM +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 11:15:49PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote :
Chris mentioned something that its not needed to restore the last
highest value for the max_fd if you drop the current highest one.
I agree, it would only be for
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 11:15:49PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote :
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 05:16:13PM +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 07:20:34AM -0700, Chris Vandomelen wrote :
Since socket_select() always wants highest +1, couldn't this be
implemented into
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 11:57:44PM +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 11:15:49PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote :
Chris mentioned something that its not needed to restore the last
highest value for the max_fd if you drop the current highest one.
I agree, it would only be for
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Jason Greene wrote:
Just for curiosity, did you considered implementing poll instead of select? You
would not have to worry about specifying
max_fd - 1.
-Jason
I had considered poll. But it's a bit more of a hassle, and it's not
avaliable everywhere (AFAIK).
Chris
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 07:50:22PM -0700, Chris Vandomelen wrote :
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 11:57:44PM +0200, Markus Fischer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 11:15:49PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote :
Chris mentioned something that its not needed to restore the last
highest value for the
26 matches
Mail list logo
