Re: Non-blocking open-network-stream

[Mario Lang]

address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> I intent do rename the NON-BLOCKING argument to a more generic TYPE
> argument.  Eventually, it could be things like:
> 
> If HOST specified - connect to that host:
> 
> nil - blocking connect (tcp) to SERVICE on HOST
> t   - non-blocking connect (tcp) to SERVICE on HOST
> udp - open udp socket with target SERVICE on HOST
> unix - connect to unix socket on address SERVICE
> 
> If HOST is nil - open a server socket:
> 
> nil - open tcp socket listning on SERVICE port
> t   - same as nil
> udp - open udp socket bound to SERVICE port
> unix - open unix socket bound to address SERVICE

Isn't this quite limiting? What comes into mind first is that binding a 
server socket to a specific interface is not possible then.

Also, as I discussed privately with Helmut, it should be possible to specify
either 0 or nil (not sure) for the PORT to be able to assign a
arbitrary free port (dynamic server socket for e.g. DCC).

I didn't look very closely at both approaches yet, but it seems to me
from first impression that merging non-blocking connects and server sockets
into one single function is quite messy.

-- 
CYa,
   Mario <address@hidden>