I just did merge those features into pike 8.1. My impression was, that
the discussion was pretty much settled. I think the current API is also
in line with how similar features work (e.g. linger). I have also added
Stdio.getprotobyname() to be able to access options on other levels.
arne
On
I think we should merge this into 8.1. The setsockopt + constants seems
like the minimally useful api to me. it also has the benefit of not
having to wait for a new pike version in order to use that fancy new
kernel feature.
any objections?
arne
On 05/04/15 19:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue,
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Stephen R. van den Berg s...@cuci.nl wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
Separately to the REUSE* questions, I've been experimenting today with
the IP_TOS settings, and to that end, dusted off this branch.
The change is taking effect - I can see it in my outgoing logs -
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg s...@cuci.nl wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Mirar @ Pike developers forum
10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se wrote:
Wait, I said REUSEPORT? What's the difference to REUSEADDR? Mysteries
of TCP sockets...
Mirar @ Pike developers forum wrote:
So far people only seem to have used KEEPALIVE and NODELAY? (And linger?)
I merely meant I don't like functions to vanish just because the
underlaying OS doesn't support them. I'd rather have the return error.
I'm not sure what other flags are useful or can
a. A primary thin wrapper around setsockopt().
b. Some secondary convenience functions for people unfamiliar with
setsockopt(2) only for those options which are commonly used.
aka both? Sure! Doesn't bother me! :)
I like the convenience functions because then you don't have to bother
So far people only seem to have used KEEPALIVE and NODELAY? (And linger?)
I merely meant I don't like functions to vanish just because the
underlaying OS doesn't support them. I'd rather have the return error.
I'm not sure what other flags are useful or can be used. FASTOPEN?
REUSEPORT? buffer
Mirar @ Pike developers forum wrote:
a. A primary thin wrapper around setsockopt().
b. Some secondary convenience functions for people unfamiliar with
setsockopt(2) only for those options which are commonly used.
aka both? Sure! Doesn't bother me! :)
I like the convenience functions
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Mirar @ Pike developers forum
10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se wrote:
Wait, I said REUSEPORT? What's the difference to REUSEADDR? Mysteries
of TCP sockets...
Here's a decent explanation, I think:
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Arne Goedeke e...@laramies.com wrote:
I think we should merge this, or at least a similar API. Any objections?
Haven't heard anyone else's views on this, which suggests that
nobody's particularly bothered one way or the other. Which version
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg s...@cuci.nl wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Arne Goedeke e...@laramies.com wrote:
I think we should merge this, or at least a similar API. Any objections?
Haven't heard anyone else's views on this, which
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Arne Goedeke e...@laramies.com wrote:
I think we should merge this, or at least a similar API. Any objections?
Haven't heard anyone else's views on this, which suggests that
nobody's particularly bothered one way or the other. Which version of
the API do you
I think we should merge this, or at least a similar API. Any objections?
Arne
On 08/28/14 19:07, Chris Angelico wrote:
Topic branch: rosuav/sockopt
Per Lance's suggestion, I've made a generic setsockopt() function. It
works only with integers, so it's not suitable for SO_LINGER, which
Topic branch: rosuav/sockopt
Per Lance's suggestion, I've made a generic setsockopt() function. It
works only with integers, so it's not suitable for SO_LINGER, which
therefore should stay the way it is (linger() takes a magic parameter
of -1), but it works for any of the simple boolean options.
Chris Angelico wrote:
Topic branch: rosuav/sockopt
Per Lance's suggestion, I've made a generic setsockopt() function. It
works only with integers, so it's not suitable for SO_LINGER, which
therefore should stay the way it is (linger() takes a magic parameter
of -1), but it works for any of the
Just throwing this out there, some modules have the functions present
regardless, and return a message or error code saying it isn't implemented if
it wasn't compiled in. So another option is to have all the methods present,
and either return a message or error code, or throw an exception, and
Lance Dillon wrote:
Just throwing this out there, some modules have the functions present
regardless, and return a message or error code saying it isn't implemented if
it wasn't compiled in.? So another option is to have all the methods present,
and either return a message or error code, or
17 matches
Mail list logo
