Re: Which comes first, pro_start_confirmation or pro_start_callback?

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 05:24:46PM -0400, David C Niemi wrote:
> 
> I was noticing that pro_start_confirmation() and pro_start_callback() 
> sound mighty similar.  It sounds like the pro_start_confirmation() may be 
> slightly later, but if so I'm curious what the distinction is between the 
> two.  In other words, once a response is received to a request to start a 
> channel, what remains to be done before the channel is actually considered 
> to have started?  Is there some local housekeeping first that may take 
> significant time, or what?
> 

I believe one is called on the start-listening peer and the other on the
start-initiating peer when start completes.

> 
> In a vaguely related question, is there a clean and convenient way to pass
> a short text string from the channel initiator to the peer for the remote
> profile to utilize when it is asked to start a channel?  Or it is expected 
> that any such profile-specific dealings should wait until after the 
> channel has already started?


You can add piggyback data on the start request.  Get's passed in 
to the start routine and can be used in startup.


-bill


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf