[BUG] Sockets aren't playing nice with me

John Clonts jclonts at mastnet.net
Sat Mar 4 03:33:15 UTC 2000


Hmmm, this *is* sounding a bit like what I was dealing with several
weeks ago.  Are you saying that

NetNameResolver addressForName: 'ibm.com'   --> nil
but
NetNameResolver addressForName: '204.146.80.99'  --> #(204 146 80 99)

???

What version of libc is your linux using?

(my problem had to do with the use of the glibc2 libraries, when I
recompiled the from sources it uses the older libc and works fine...)


Cheers,
John

Robert Withers wrote:
> 
> Yes, I'm not holding my breathe on VM threads and we should need them as
> you said.  I am using the ObjectSocket which is a SocketStream.  I
> started having the problems again this morning.  In bash, I can resolve
> localhost -> 127.0.0.1, babylon -> 192.168.1.10, and ibm.com ->
> 204.146.80.99.  This exercises the hosts file (for the first two) and
> DNS for the third.  I have a default gateway (192.168.1.7) that traffic
> is routing to to get to DNS which is out there somewhere.
> 
> In the attachment I included two scripts, "Works" and "Broken".  It is
> the NetNameResolver which returns '0.0.0.0' for the 'localhost' name.
> Other names ('ibm.com') return nil.
> 
> Lex Spoon wrote:
> >
> > Robert Withers <withers at vnet.net> wrote:
> > > Ok, I see what you are saying.  I'll be patient. It can't be that far
> > > down the road for multiple vm thread support.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think VM threads are going to happen any time soon.  What some
> > people have done is made a sort of SocketStream which has regular
> > blocking commands like #next and #next:.  If you use these instead of
> > using a Socket directly, then you don't have to explicitly do the waits.
> >
> > VM threads make things more complicated, and they don't seem to have a
> > big advantage.
> >
> > > Since I am up at work, I will continue with what I have and help revisit
> > > this when the timing is better (threads)
> > >
> >
> > Is the lack of VM threads causing you any difficulty?  I bet there is a
> > way to make it work with the current scheme.
> >
> > Lex
> 
> --
> --------------------------------------------------
> Smalltalking by choice.  Isn't it nice to have one!
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
> "Works"
> |s|
> Socket initializeNetwork.
> s := Socket newTCP.
> s connectTo: (NetNameResolver addressForName: '127.0.0.1') port: 21.
> s waitForConnectionUntil: Socket standardDeadline.
> s sendSomeData: (String cr, String cr).
> 1 to: 10 do: [:i |
>         s sendSomeData: (String cr, String cr).
>         [s dataAvailable] whileTrue: [Transcript cr; show: s getData printString]].
> s destroy.
> 
> "Broken"
> |s|
> Socket initializeNetwork.
> s := Socket newTCP.
> s connectTo: (NetNameResolver addressForName: 'localhost') port: 21.
> s waitForConnectionUntil: Socket standardDeadline.
> s sendSomeData: (String cr, String cr).
> 1 to: 10 do: [:i |
>         s sendSomeData: (String cr, String cr).
>         [s dataAvailable] whileTrue: [Transcript cr; show: s getData printString]].
> s destroy.





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list