Anyway, to come back to the first statement of this thread, Robert Brewer has made lots of fixing in the current CherryPy trunk regarding the way CP handles sockets so it could have also changed the situation described.
I haven't tried the latest changes yet though. - Sylvain Selon Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Nov 28, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Jorge Godoy wrote: > > > > > Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> How can you get to answer to 2 simultaneous clients on the same > >> port at the > >> same time without multicast/broadcast then? Threads allow you to run > >> concurrent things but they don't magically turn your physical > >> medium into > >> something that can carry more information at the same time. > > > > There's no need for physical medium here, you can only answer one > > request at a > > time on each port, this is what I was trying to say. I was > > thinking on > > another thing that involved more bandwidth, this is why there > > appeared the > > physical constraint on my message. > > > > Even with threads, you can't handle two different things at the > > very same time > > on the same port. And there's one process listening or writing to > > the port at > > a given time. If multiple threads request the information from > > this server > > process, the server is acting as a multiplexer. > > > > If forking -- I haven't read CP's code and I wasn't thinking > > specifically > > about it even tho it is the one that was involved -- them each > > process can > > bind to a port and handle everything from there, without the need of a > > multiplexer. > > You're confusing ports and sockets. Ports are just an addressing > scheme, sockets facilitate the connection... all of what you just > said here is totally bogus. > > -bob > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
