On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:03 PM, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > I was thinking about an alternate solution, using blocking sockets,
>> > and doing the connect on another thread. If the user cancels the
>> > operation I'd close the socket (BIO_free) and I guess the connect
>> > wo
Michael S. Zick wrote:
> On Fri October 24 2008, David Schwartz wrote:
>>
> - - - -
>>
>> Notice how this assumes that if BIO_sock_error returns zero, the connection
>> completed? This is a bogus inference. The absence of an error just means the
>> connection attempt has not failed *yet* and tells
Gabriel Soto wrote:
>
> Greetings.
> I'm a noob trying to code a simple TCP client (Windows, MinGW, OpenSSL
> 0.9.8g). Since it has a GUI, I have to go with non-blocking sockets.
>
> I'm supplying a nonexistent host to test a failure but this is what happens:
>
Greetings.
I'm a noob trying to code a simple TCP client (Windows, MinGW, OpenSSL
0.9.8g). Since it has a GUI, I have to go with non-blocking sockets.
I'm supplying a nonexistent host to test a failure but this is what happens:
A first call to connect returns naturally "no connection" and
BIO_shou
