Re: What's next?

Brian Bruns <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.db.tds.freetds
Message-ID <CAAATWxk3Dkn37X25WFgPsSDW+n674ZkUnYKnqQxiJ4SniX1nNA@mail.gmail.com>
Erm, I should have been clearer.  I'm using asynchronous I/O in a more
generic sense, my implementation is using standard non-blocking I/O as
the underlying mechanism.  I think ctlib calls this "deferred mode" or
some such.  If we shot for full ctlib asynchronous implementation we'd
have to do signaling too.  Oh god, I wouldn't want to have to handle
SIGIO all over the place.  I'll leave that in the maybe-someday
bucket, not my immediate concern.

I am using a small wrapper to interface directly to libtds, even if I
have advised everyone would ever came on this list from doing exactly
that.  I wouldn't mind using ctlib or ODBC, but that is a whole other
layer to add support to and I'm still struggling to get this part
right.

Brian

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:35 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:51:21AM -0400, Brian Bruns wrote:
>>
>> I need to send a read/write request off to the server receive an
>> EAGAIN and then go about my business and do a big select() with both
>> the tds socket and other file descriptors and come back when there is
>> something to handle.  I need to never, ever wait for the network.
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Stevens devotes a chapter each to non-blocking, asynch, and
> signal-driven I/O.  They're all functionally equivalent.  I think
> non-blocking is the best choice because it's the most portable.
>
> We see EAGAIN now when connecting.   We're already set to support the
> "asynchronous" client library functions; we don't need FIOASYNC to do
> that.   It's just a SMP.
>
> I wrote tds_select() to support timeouts and dbinterrupt().  It might
> be trickier than you realize, because of the callbacks to the client
> libraries and the fact that they don't deal with timeouts in the same
> way.  It took me quite a while to straighten it all out.
>
> I think what you really want is a low-level interface to libtds?
>
> It's interesting -- and no coincidence -- that you and Frediano and I
> all see need for changes in libtds.  I've been thinking about this for
> quite some time, and I have some suggestions.  Let me start a new
> thread for them, though.
>
> Regards,
>
> --jkl
> _______________________________________________
> FreeTDS mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/freetds
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.