[BUG] Sockets aren't playing nice with me

Lex Spoon lex at cc.gatech.edu
Thu Mar 2 13:07:24 UTC 2000

Well you posted a lot.  To answer a few questions:

	1. If you can't telnet to port 7, then ping isn't going to work. 
Probably a lot of people leave this service disabled nowadays, because
the Internet isn't as friendly as it used to be.

	2. The waitFor *primitives* make sense because otherwise, the VM needs
to deal with threads.  As is, another Squeak process can run while one
process is waiting on a networking command to proceed.  Granted, it
would be nice to have image-level support that didn't require the wait.

	3. The error returned from ping: is misleading, but that's probably
because ping: simply can't tell whether it got a connection refused or a
time out.  Networking failures are one place where it would be so nice
if primitives could say *why* they failed.  Tim Rowledge once described
a system similar to errno in Unix.  Sounds good to me.


Robert Withers <withers at vnet.net> wrote:
> There have been several threads on the sockets in squeak over the past
> several months which I have reviewed but I am still confused.  I
> inspect:
> NetNameResolver localHostAddress.
> and I get  cool.  My clientServerTestUDP works, it seems to be
> the TCP stuff.  Also my Socket ping: 'localhost' fails.  It seems that
> connectTo:timeout: doesn't connect (through various tests) but this
> issue doesn't show up until the waitForConnect stuff is called.  All of
> my functionality works outside of squeak (Linux SuSU 6.3 on an intel). 
> Why isn't squeak working like the other network programs?  Why do we
> have waitFor... methods?  Wouldn't it be better to have atomic socket
> operations? (accept, listen, bind, connect, send, receive, disconnect,
> destroy, setIOCtls, getIOCtls)   What can we do to fix this?  Do we need
> FFI/Callin or can we continue to use named primatives?  It would be nice
> to have a debug facility that we can turn on inside the primative code;
> perhaps assertions?
> I wish I had more answers to post at this time, but I don't.  I would be
> very interested in helping code a solution with design assistance.
> thanks,
> Rob
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------
> Smalltalking by choice.  Isn't it nice to have one!

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list