d93c181f
From: grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se
On Thu, 2010-09-23, GSA wrote:
> On Sep 23, 4:34 am, David Schwartz wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 11:48 am, GSA wrote:
>>
>> > I need to maintain threads as the two operations are independent. Also
>> > I want to keep these 2 threads running eternally.
>>
>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Both threads are talking to Cli and both
>> threads are talking to Srv. How can the two operations be independent?
>> If the link to Cli or Srv fails, neither thread can keep doing its
>> job.
>>
>> If I misunderstood and the threads don't share any sockets at all,
>> then if a thread loses a socket, just have it recreate that socket.
>>
>> DS
>
> I want a module which sits b/w a server and a client and passes data
> between them, either side to the other side.
> The threads do share sockets:
> Thread 1: SRV->Srv-Cli->CLI
> Thread 2: CLI->Srv-Cli->SRV
That seems awkward -- thread 1 will notice problems which only thread
2 can do anything about, and vice versa.
> the intermediate module has a server socket thru which it communicates
> with CLI and a client sock thru which it communicates with SRV in both
> the threads.
But once again: what problem are you trying to solve? Perhaps there is
a way which doesn't involve writing your own proxy.
> am highly confused on eror handling and usage of select
> as an alternative
I'm thinking vaguely about a design where one process
- keeps an uplink buffer
- and a downlink buffer
and has as its goals for each buffer
- to fill it as soon as possible from one socket (when select says
there is something there)
- and drain it as soon as possible into the other (when select
says it might be possible)
plus an analysis of all possible errors and what to do
in those cases. And an analysis of connect/disconnect.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn O o .
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
