[ruby-core:22837] Re: [Bug #814] NoMethodError: undefined method `read_nonblock' for #<OpenSSL::SSL::SSLSocket:0x1a64f9a0>

In article <[e-mail]>,
  Tony Arcieri <[e-mail]> writes:

> All right, as soon as you've finalized the exception names I will use those
> in openssl-nonblock in lieu of my current ones and make them both descend
> from Errno::EWOULDBLOCK

OpenSSL::SSL::SSLError may be better than Errno::EWOULDBLOCK.

It force people to rescue IO::WantRead instead of
Errno::EWOULDBLOCK.

> My exceptions were called ReadAgain and WriteAgain.  Perhaps those would be
> better names? (although perhaps a bit confusing if descending from
> Errno::EWOULDBLOCK as opposed to Errno::EAGAIN)

I've just thought IO::WaitReadable and IO::WaitWritable.

The modules are used not only for read/write but also for
connect/accept.

nonblocking connect needs to wait writability.

  begin
    sock.connect_nonblock(arg)
  rescue IO::WriteAgain
    IO.select(nil, [sock]) # wait 3-way handshake
    begin
      sock.connect_nonblock(arg) # error check
    rescue Errno::EISCONN
    end
  end

I think WriteAgain is not suitable for connect_nonblock
because the application doesn't seem to write.

Another concern is the third argument of IO.select.  It waits
exceptional condition.  One usage is out-of-band data in
TCP.  IO::WaitException or IO::WaitError may be required in
future.  I guess IO::ExceptionAgain is not a good name
because exception is not a verb.
-- 
Tanaka Akira