Hey, I understand Simon's view on how not to close buffer event sockets, but can some one explain why this https://gist.github.com/714606 idea is bad?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sid <itis...@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [Libevent-users] Closing bufferevents sockets from the server side To: Simon Perreault <simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca> Just to clarify, what I am looking to do is free the buffer event by comparing the number of bytes deleted from evbuffer_cb_info to the actual argument sent in the args field Here: https://gist.github.com/714606 is an example function of what I am trying to do... On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Sid <itis...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm right... But can you explain why is that wrong? > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Simon Perreault < > simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca> wrote: > >> On 2010-11-24 15:54, Sid wrote: >> > Well water marks seem to be the way to go.. But before your reply came I >> > saw that in the library there is an interface >> > >> > *struct* evbuffer_cb_info { >> > size_t orig_size; >> > size_t n_added; >> > size_t n_deleted; >> > }; >> > >> > *typedef* *void* (*evbuffer_cb_func)(*struct* evbuffer *buffer, >> > *const* *struct* evbuffer_cb_info *info, *void* *arg); >> > >> > described >> http://www.wangafu.net/~nickm/libevent-book/Ref7_evbuffer.html >> > >> > >> > I think this is the right way to do this stuff... >> >> It is most definitely the *wrong* way. >> >> Free the bufferevent in write callback with a write watermark set to 0. >> That is the right way to do it. >> >> Simon >> -- >> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca >> NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca >> STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca >> > >
