David,
If I can get 999% guarantee, I'd be happy. Not looking for the
impossible 100%.
In any case, yes, you've pegged the heart of my real question. And, your
answer is not the one I was hoping for but it has the authoritative
flavor that I ultimately really wanted, regardless of the answer
> David Schwartz wrote:
> > I have never done anything like this, however.
> >
> > DS
> >
> H. Then, I'm curious to know at what point (between what socket
> functions) you put your socket in the non-blocking state and when/if you
> ever set it back to blocking?
>
> Joe
I
David Schwartz wrote:
I have never done anything like this, however.
DS
H. Then, I'm curious to know at what point (between what socket
functions) you put your socket in the non-blocking state and when/if you
ever set it back to blocking?
Joe
___
I am not 100% sure I understand your question.
It is necessary that I make a very simple HTTPS "browser" in one thread
and a very simple HTTPS "server" in another thread.
I'd like to make the HTTPS "browser" thread impervious (not get hung in
a blocking state) to web servers that are rebooted
> Is it "safe" to put just SSL_read() and SSL_write() inside the
> non-blocking BIO regions and leaving SSL_accept(), SSL_connect(),
> SSL_shutdown(), accept(), socket(), bind(), listen(), connect(),
> shutdown(), close(), SSL_CTX_new(meth), SSL_new(ctx),
> SSL_CTX_free(ctx), etc. in the blocking
Is it "safe" to put just SSL_read() and SSL_write() inside the
non-blocking BIO regions and leaving SSL_accept(), SSL_connect(),
SSL_shutdown(), accept(), socket(), bind(), listen(), connect(),
shutdown(), close(), SSL_CTX_new(meth), SSL_new(ctx),
SSL_CTX_free(ctx), etc. in the blocking BIO re
