> So what would be your recommendation?
> Partial writes or not ?
Sane non-blocking implementations pretty much have to enable 'partial
writes' and 'enable moving write buffer'. Otherwise the semantics become
insane, as you pointed out.
> It all seems a bit unclear to me still I'm afraid. mostly
Original message
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:01:54 -0700
>From: "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: SSL_connect and SSL_accept
>To:
>
>
>> So what you are saying is the scenario we have been discussing so far is
>> possible ONLY in case of memory allocation issues NOT O
On Saturday 31 March 2007 13:30, David Schwartz wrote:
> > It's just this I'm having a hard trouble to grasp.
> > Normally with say 'write' I would do
> >
> > // pseudo code
> > while(written < len)
> >written += write(fd, my_packet + written, len - written);
> >
> > But because SSL_write handl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I'm trying to find the corresponding sparc ones.. I believe I'll get the
answer monday.
They are those:
120760-12 Sun Studio 11: Compiler Common patch for Sun C C++ F77 F95
120761-03 Sun Studio 11: Patch for Performance Analyzer Tools
121015-04 Sun Studio 11: Patch f
> It's just this I'm having a hard trouble to grasp.
> Normally with say 'write' I would do
>
> // pseudo code
> while(written < len)
>written += write(fd, my_packet + written, len - written);
>
> But because SSL_write handles an internal queue and calls for
> sending the same
> argument all t
On Saturday 31 March 2007 00:26, David Schwartz wrote:
> > I see, so if I disable PARTIAL_WRITES, will that mean that it will return
> > values as I wrote up there?
>
> PARTIAL_WRITES has no effect on the meaning of the return value. It just
> controls whether or not the internal write logic tries
