Re: [liblo] TCP

[Steve H. <S.W...@ec...>]

On 23 Dec 2008, at 19:03, Stephen Sinclair wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Kentaro Fukuchi  
> <fu...@me...> wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> It's really nice to have a keep-alive TCP connection of OSC server.
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:59:58 -0500
>> "Stephen Sinclair" <rad...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>>> So that tells me it might be better to leave them open, so I tried
>>> this.  It worked for a single connection, by adding a
>>> "connected_socket" member to the lo_server structure, and polling  
>>> that
>>> instead of the "socket" member.  However, I quickly realized that  
>>> this
>>> would mean that lo_server would need a data structure to track _all_
>>> open sockets.
>>
>> Common server programs using TCP have the same data structure to  
>> track them.
>> For blocking server, you can use select() system call.
>
> Exactly, it's already using select() for Windows and poll() for *nix,
> so it should be fairly easy to support this.  I already started
> working on a patch but it's not ready yet.  So far I'm using a linked
> list to keep the socket information, but I'm trying to decide if this
> approach is more complex than necessary.
>
> Maybe Steve H. can tell me, but I'm not actually sure what advantage
> poll() has over select(), actually.

Not really my field, but I used to work without shouting distance of a  
load of network research people, I asked them and they said "use  
poll(), it's better" or words to that effect :)

I vaguely remember that select is only efficient with a small number  
of sockets/FDs.

- Steve