× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



> From: Scott Klement
> 
> Hard to say.  That's why I prefer to use an "I'm done" code of some
sort
> instead of shutdown(), and then have the remote side acknowedge that
the
> data was received. After that, it doesn't matter who closes the
connection
> or when, since you know the mission critical data was sent
successfully.

In addition to my normal bias of taking just about anything Scott says
about sockets as gospel, this particular bit of advice is simply golden
in any sort of asynchronous environment.  It may costs you a few
milliseconds in that extra turnaround, but it can save you hours or even
days in debugging.

Another personal bias it to try to ensure if at all possible (especially
in full duplex communications) that each side is responsible for
maintaining the objects it uses to receive data, and for cleaning them
up after normal or abnormal terminations.  When both sides use the same
object, both sides should attempt cleanup after abnormal termination.

Joe


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.