I just did merge those features into pike 8.1. My impression was, that
the discussion was pretty much settled. I think the current API is also
in line with how similar features work (e.g. linger). I have also added
Stdio.getprotobyname() to be able to access options on other levels.
arne
On 05/07
I think we should merge this into 8.1. The setsockopt + constants seems
like the minimally useful api to me. it also has the benefit of not
having to wait for a new pike version in order to use that fancy new
kernel feature.
any objections?
arne
On 05/04/15 19:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue,
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>Separately to the REUSE* questions, I've been experimenting today with
>>the IP_TOS settings, and to that end, dusted off this branch.
>
>>The change is taking effect - I can see it in my outgoing logs -
>>alt
Chris Angelico wrote:
>Separately to the REUSE* questions, I've been experimenting today with
>the IP_TOS settings, and to that end, dusted off this branch.
>The change is taking effect - I can see it in my outgoing logs -
>although whether it actually improves performance or not is another
>quest
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Mirar @ Pike developers forum
>><10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>>> Wait, I said REUSEPORT? What's the difference to REUSEADDR? Mysteries
>>> of TCP sockets...
>
>>htt
Chris Angelico wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Mirar @ Pike developers forum
><10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>> Wait, I said REUSEPORT? What's the difference to REUSEADDR? Mysteries
>> of TCP sockets...
>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14388706/socket-options-so-reuseaddr-and-s
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Mirar @ Pike developers forum
<10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> Wait, I said REUSEPORT? What's the difference to REUSEADDR? Mysteries
> of TCP sockets...
Here's a decent explanation, I think:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14388706/socket-options-so-reu
Wait, I said REUSEPORT? What's the difference to REUSEADDR? Mysteries
of TCP sockets...
>Then, if someone actually finds himself using the more obscure ones,
>they can then send in a feature request for yet another convenience
>function.
Yep.
Mirar @ Pike developers forum wrote:
>So far people only seem to have used KEEPALIVE and NODELAY? (And linger?)
>I merely meant I don't like functions to vanish just because the
>underlaying OS doesn't support them. I'd rather have the return error.
>I'm not sure what other flags are useful or c
So far people only seem to have used KEEPALIVE and NODELAY? (And linger?)
I merely meant I don't like functions to vanish just because the
underlaying OS doesn't support them. I'd rather have the return error.
I'm not sure what other flags are useful or can be used. FASTOPEN?
REUSEPORT? buffer si
Mirar @ Pike developers forum wrote:
> >> a. A primary thin wrapper around setsockopt().
> >> b. Some secondary convenience functions for people unfamiliar with
> >>setsockopt(2) only for those options which are commonly used.
> >aka "both"? Sure! Doesn't bother me! :)
>I like the convenienc
>> a. A primary thin wrapper around setsockopt().
>> b. Some secondary convenience functions for people unfamiliar with
>>setsockopt(2) only for those options which are commonly used.
>
>aka "both"? Sure! Doesn't bother me! :)
I like the convenience functions because then you don't have t
Chris Angelico wrote:
>> What about:
>> a. A primary thin wrapper around setsockopt().
>> b. Some secondary convenience functions for people unfamiliar with
>>setsockopt(2) only for those options which are commonly used.
>aka "both"? Sure! Doesn't bother me! :)
Yes, but be reluctant in adding
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Arne Goedeke wrote:
>>> I think we should merge this, or at least a similar API. Any objections?
>
>>Haven't heard anyone else's views on this, which suggests that
>>nobody'
Chris Angelico wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Arne Goedeke wrote:
>> I think we should merge this, or at least a similar API. Any objections?
>Haven't heard anyone else's views on this, which suggests that
>nobody's particularly bothered one way or the other. Which version of
>the API
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Arne Goedeke wrote:
> I think we should merge this, or at least a similar API. Any objections?
Haven't heard anyone else's views on this, which suggests that
nobody's particularly bothered one way or the other. Which version of
the API do you want? Dedicated func
I think we should merge this, or at least a similar API. Any objections?
Arne
On 08/28/14 19:07, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Topic branch: rosuav/sockopt
>
> Per Lance's suggestion, I've made a generic setsockopt() function. It
> works only with integers, so it's not suitable for SO_LINGER, which
>
Lance Dillon wrote:
>Just throwing this out there, some modules have the functions present
>regardless, and return a message or error code saying it isn't implemented if
>it wasn't compiled in.? So another option is to have all the methods present,
>and either return a message or error code, or
Just throwing this out there, some modules have the functions present
regardless, and return a message or error code saying it isn't implemented if
it wasn't compiled in. So another option is to have all the methods present,
and either return a message or error code, or throw an exception, and
Chris Angelico wrote:
>Topic branch: rosuav/sockopt
>Per Lance's suggestion, I've made a generic setsockopt() function. It
>works only with integers, so it's not suitable for SO_LINGER, which
>therefore should stay the way it is (linger() takes a magic parameter
>of -1), but it works for any of the
Topic branch: rosuav/sockopt
Per Lance's suggestion, I've made a generic setsockopt() function. It
works only with integers, so it's not suitable for SO_LINGER, which
therefore should stay the way it is (linger() takes a magic parameter
of -1), but it works for any of the simple boolean options.
21 matches
Mail list logo
