From: Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@...>
Date: 2006-05-16T01:35:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Nonblocking socket-connect

I have to admit, I seriously dislike AIO. In my experience, it only
really works well on Windows (and believe me, I hate to admit that).
I have to implement NIO anyway for eventmachine, so I'll keep in mind
the possibility of a standalone class that would be separate and
distinct from IO. If it turns out well, I'll propose it here.

On 5/15/06, Berger, Daniel <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org]
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:15 AM
> > To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
> > Subject: Re: Nonblocking socket-connect
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In message "Re: Nonblocking socket-connect"
> >     on Tue, 16 May 2006 00:42:39 +0900, "Francis Cianfrocca"
> > <garbagecat10@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > |Well, it's ok then. I'm comfortable adding in the
> > nonblocking functions
> > |as an extension in my asynchronous-IO framework. If you decide it's
> > |best to leave nonblocking i/o out of the core, then people
> > will be able
> > |to get it if necessary through my "eventmachine" library.
> >
> > Note that I'm not against for non-blocking connect.  I just
> > oppose to general purpose non-blocking attribute for IO.
> > Hint: name, name.
> >
> >                                                       matz.
>
> A separate AIO class as Python does?
>
> A separate NIO class as Java does?
>
> Just tossing ideas out there.
>
> Dan
>
>
> This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
> privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication
> in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the communication and any attachments.
>
>