Re: [naviserver-devel] [naviserver-commits] naviserver ChangeLog, 1.405, 1.406

[Vlad S. <vl...@cr...>]

> 
> Adding without restraint is also a problem.  It gets to the point
> where you code yourself to a stand still.  For example, there are some
> long standing bugs in the driver code which have been looked at and
> are still failing tests.  Essentially, they are unfixable.

We discussed driver extensions and i offered more than year ago what 
could work and it is working fine, i've been using that extensions all 
the time and now. We agreed until something better will appear i will 
keep this driver code. As for failing tests, in real life the code works 
but with this tests not so it is still unclear why. I use upload/writer 
threads in pretty busy environment so it is not completely bad but 
again, do not just wipe them out, let's discuss what you can offer 
instead of this keeping the functionality of course.

> Here's a recent example:
> 
> The routine Ns_SockTimeWait was changed so that if NULL is passed as
> the timeout, it just polls.  All the other calls in the server which
> take a timeout parameter, NULL mean infinite wait, not no wait.
> 
> If you look at the context in which this is used, SockTimedWait is
> used to ask the question "is this socket writeable?".  There is no
> wait, for any amount of time.  It makes the code very hard to read,
> especially in combination with similar changes.

I checked the code and previously Ns_SockTimeWait could not accept NULL, 
it assumed that it is always passed, so adding NULL was safe, but i 
agree, passing 0 timeout would do the same purpose and adding NULL as 
infinite would be more logical.

-- 
Vlad Seryakov
571 262-8608 office
vl...@cr...
http://www.crystalballinc.com/vlad/