[En-Nut-Discussion] NutTcpAccept() timeout

[Thiago A. Corrêa]

>From the API point of view, I actually prefer the former, because at the
first sight it's obvious that it has a different behavior. The function name
expresses what it does, and that's what the API designer should strive for.
Just my 2cents...

On 7/20/06, Harald Kipp <harald.kipp at egnite.de> wrote:
>
> Henrik,
>
> At 20:07 06.07.2006 +1000, you wrote:
>
> >To be compatible with existing applications, these calls could be either
> >implemented as overloaded "Try" version of the connect and accept call:
> >
> >    NutTcpTryAccept(sock, port, waittime);
> >    NutTcpTryConnect(sock, ip, port, waittime)
> >
> >or using ioctl and specific socket options (SO_ACCTIMEO and SO_CONNTIMEO)
> >to apply time-outs to these two operations.
> >
> >I actually prefer the latter option as it keeps the API lean and neat.
>
> I'd prefer the latter too. It may break a few apps, but would
> be easy to fix.
>
> Looks like I have been the only one rejecting this previously.
> Please go ahead.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Harald
>
> _______________________________________________
> En-Nut-Discussion mailing list
> En-Nut-Discussion at egnite.de
> http://www.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo.cgi/en-nut-discussion
>