Re: Which comes first, pro_start_confirmation or pro_start_callback?

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, William J. Mills 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.

pro_start_confirmation() is definitily on the initiator side.

But pro_start_callback() is "invoked when a response is received to 
*_start's request to start a channel".  This also sounds like the 
initiator side -- if it had SENT the response, why would it be looking for 
it?


> > 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.

Thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------
-- David C. Niemi           Adeptech Systems, Inc.   --
-- Reston, Virginia, USA    http://www.adeptech.com/ --
-------------------------------------------------------



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