On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> But one problem with this implementation is portability -- I'm pretty sure
> that some systems don't support FIONBIO.
Correct. Ancient ones it seems, I couldn't find a single "modern" (eh, no
don't ask me to define that term) system that doesn't do it FIONBIO-style.
> In fact, Wget should work even on systems without a select() call.
Yikes! :-)
> Several days ago I've taken a look at how libcurl handles non-blocking
> sockets, and I was appalled at the complexity of the configure checks
> required to support a large variety of systems.
*nods*. I wrote the test. I tried to research the case before I dove into it,
and I believe my test cover most systems.
> Implementing the same feature in Wget should probably require more
> investigation and a lot of testing on different platforms.
Hm. First, would that really be so bad? Secondly, why not "downgrade" to
blocking connects if you couldn't figure out how to do non-blocking ones?
I think we (can) do that in libcurl.
> So far I've been consistently reaching the conclusion that connect timeouts
> are simply not worth the effort.
You could solve it with a plain and simple alarm() and a signal handler. It
would work on pretty much all unix-systems...
--
Daniel Stenberg - http://daniel.haxx.se - +46-705-44 31 77
ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol
