Re: BinaryWriter.Flush and BufferedStream.Flush
From: Chris (chrisNnOoSsPpAaMmtanger_at_technocisive.com)
Date: 06/18/04
- Next message: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]: "Re: Real life cost of using exceptions for control flow?"
- Previous message: Alvin Bruney [MVP]: "Re: Real life cost of using exceptions for control flow?"
- In reply to: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]: "Re: BinaryWriter.Flush and BufferedStream.Flush"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:22:29 -0500
> Gosh - just how many of these messages *are* you sending per second?
Not a terribly large amount, perhaps nominally about 400 with a peak of
perhaps 2000 per second. However there could be 100-1000 such connections
on a server.
> It sounds like there could be a good use for a stream wrapper which
> proxies every call *except* Close and Dispose - you could wrap that
> round your buffered stream, and then use everything else without
> worrying about it. (Indeed, you would still want Close to be called on
> the higher wrappers, as that would flush them.) Does that sound like a
> reasonable approach?
>
Yes, I think that is a good idea. I'll let you know what I ultimately
come up with.
-Chris
- Next message: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]: "Re: Real life cost of using exceptions for control flow?"
- Previous message: Alvin Bruney [MVP]: "Re: Real life cost of using exceptions for control flow?"
- In reply to: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]: "Re: BinaryWriter.Flush and BufferedStream.Flush"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
