At Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:14:12 +0000, Tim Brown wrote: > I have written a remote-server (as in > racket/place/define-remote-server), which I am then trying to use from a > web-server. The remote-server is running on a remote node (which is, in > fact, localhost). > > [...] > > It seems that the RPC packets are overlapping. [...] the write to the > remote host is non-atomic, and not synchronised.
That sounds likely. > Has anyone else done this/encountered this? I doubt that anyone else has tried something similar. > Will a write of a single string suffer this? Yes, I think it will still be a problem for any message that is large enough. > Would a semaphore (or similar) around sconn-write-flush be the right > place/time for synchronising messages. That sounds right to me. Specifically, it looks like putting the lock in the `socket-connection%` object and using it in `_write-flush` would be the right place. Let me know if that solves the problem, and if so, I'll apply that patch. > Also -- I notice that write-flush is defined as: > > (define (write-flush msg [p (current-output-port)]) > (flush-output) > (write msg p) > (flush-output p)) > > Should that first flush-output be on p? Probably, but... Unless always flushing the current output port was intended (which doesn't sound like a good idea), I don't see how that first `(flush-output)` can be useful. Probably the right change is to just remove it. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
