From: lcargill99@comcast.com   
      
   Jorgen Grahn wrote:   
   > On Mon, 2013-09-30, Les Cargill wrote:   
   >> Jorgen Grahn wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 2013-09-30, Les Cargill wrote:   
   >>>> Is the following statement correct, incorrect or in need of amendment?   
   >>>> (You'd think you could Google for it, and you would be wrong ).   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If a TCP/IP server has a select()/recv() loop, and an error of   
   >>>> ECONRESET is ever encountered, the server *must* close the connection?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (paraphrasing)   
   >>>> Are there transient ECONNRESET ... states in TCP/IP?   
   >>>   
   >>> That would make ECONNRESET both meaningless and mislabeled,   
   >>> wouldn't it?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It *can't* be that easy. :)   
   >>   
   >>> As far as I know, ECONNRESET says the connection is irrevocably lost,   
   >>   
   >> That's what I would think, yes.   
   >>   
   >>> and there's nothing you can do about it.  And you also don't know   
   >>> exactly what the peer application's state was before the problem.   
   >>   
   >> Bingo. Neither does the developer of it...  looks like   
   >> there's UDP on my future. Just not today.   
   >   
   > UDP doesn't solve that problem, if that's what you mean.   
      
   I respectfully disagree. It enables the actual solution to   
   this problem by moving the retransmission logic into app space.   
      
   > It's one of   
   > those classic problems ... does it have a name? IRTR an allegory with   
   > one general sending someone with a message to the battlefield, and not   
   > being sure the message or the reply got lost.   
   >   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem   
      
   > /Jorgen   
   >   
      
   --   
   Les Cargill   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)