Re: Socket weirdness
- From: "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:02:11 -0400
I guess the bit is not set in a send either - only the ACK. So I guess that
means you must always do at least two sends (at the client) before you will
notice a shutdown receive at server.
--
William Stacey [MVP]
"Dave Sexton" <dave@jwa[remove.this]online.com> wrote in message
news:O6rzGL42GHA.5048@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Hi William,
|
| >I see what they did with the two version of send now. Send with the
"out"
| > error overload should probably be changed to "bool TrySend(...)" to
match
| > with current standards. The null IAsyncResult thing still bugs me
|
| Agreed.
|
| > The other thing we discover here via imperitive evidence is that
| > shutdown.receive will never be sent by server unless it can piggyback on
an
| > ACK reply or an outgoing message. Something I must remember. Cheers.
|
| I haven't tried using an outgoing message. Did you test that?
|
| --
| Dave Sexton
|
|
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Alan J. McFarlane
- Re: Socket weirdness
- References:
- Socket weirdness
- From: William Stacey [MVP]
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Dave Sexton
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: William Stacey [MVP]
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Dave Sexton
- Socket weirdness
- Prev by Date: Re: Socket weirdness
- Next by Date: Re: syncronized class
- Previous by thread: Re: Socket weirdness
- Next by thread: Re: Socket weirdness
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|