[#7872] Nonblocking socket-connect — "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@...>

All, I needed a nonblocking socket connect for my asynchronous-event

18 messages 2006/05/14
[#7873] Re: Nonblocking socket-connect — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/05/14

In article <3a94cf510605140559l7baa0205le341dac4f47d424b@mail.gmail.com>,

[#7874] Re: Nonblocking socket-connect — "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@...> 2006/05/15

How about introducing the method Socket#set_nonblocking, or alternatively

[#7875] Re: Nonblocking socket-connect — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/05/15

Hi,

[#7876] Re: Nonblocking socket-connect — "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@...> 2006/05/15

Well, it's ok then. I'm comfortable adding in the nonblocking

[#7877] Re: Nonblocking socket-connect — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/05/15

Hi,

Re: Nonblocking socket-connect

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2006-05-15 15:27:51 UTC
List: ruby-core #7875
Hi,

In message "Re: Nonblocking socket-connect"
    on Mon, 15 May 2006 20:20:12 +0900, "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@gmail.com> writes:

|In other words, if we call Socket#nonblocking(true), the behavior of
|Socket#connect would change to a pure nonblocking behavior. But it would not
|break any existing code, nor would it introduce of ugly new method names
|(connect_nonblocking, read_nonblocking, write_nonblocking). Calling
|Socket#nonblocking( false ) would revert to the original behavior.

require 'io/nonblock' would do what you proposed.  But I'm not
positive against making it built in, because non-blocking IO can cause
weird problems so easily under Ruby.  I don't want to encourage using
them.  Honestly, I want to remove io/nonblock if it's not too late.

							matz.

In This Thread