Hi all!

Quoting Ned Konz <ned at bike-nomad.com>:
> On Thursday 02 May 2002 02:47 am, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> > goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> > > > Goran's example code works properly, Scamper works, and with
> > > > any luck email sending works.  :)  Hopefully this is better on
> > > > the whole, but there may well be new problems.  It's tricky
> > > > stuff, and the code is less than clear.
> >
> > I don't think Comanche works, can't get a connection. It uses
> > waitForAcceptUntil: from ConnectionHandler>>pvtNewListenLoop.
> 
> Yes, it seems to have broken Comanche. Oh well.

;-) The app we are building has several Comanche services running concurrently
and during development I also run the client Processes in the same image.

So I have quite a few Processes all running at user background priority. This
was why I discovered the "bug" (hey, that little | instead of & makes a world of
a difference..., and there were some other small things too) in the first place. 

waitForDataUntil: started "busylooping" and due to the scheduling in Squeak no
other Process at the same priority got to run anything. It's kindof interesting
that this has gone "unnoticed" for so long and that Unix has actually been
mentioned as the "stable" platform for networking... :-)

I haven't heard anything more from Ian for some days - the patch he sent me was
probably as "insufficient" as the one that has been applied to SF - it showed
similar problems.

I just have to get our app packaged next week, and I can actually live with the
"10ms hack" for that so I will let this rest until then.

Hopefully John, Ian and Lex can work through the current code and get it
working. And then we need to decide what to do with the Unix port at SF. IMHO we
need to have Ian "with us" - let's just find a good "procedure" for this.

regards, Göran

Göran Hultgren, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
GSM: +46 70 3933950, http://www.bluefish.se
\"Department of Redundancy department.\" -- ThinkGeek