From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,136c120daac2a1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: tasksing and TCP sockets
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:55:57 +0000
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m2irs0awpe.fsf@grendel.local>
References: <1138659171.491931.322480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <hwc5kuyeybnx.3pauwgv4ee44.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1138744551 15013 62.49.19.209 (31 Jan 2006 21:55:51
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:55:51 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eDZIuu1Lw55Ajw7DaDFc20rO1sc=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2727
Date: 2006-01-31T21:55:57+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On 30 Jan 2006 14:12:51 -0800, Rolf wrote:

>>  - I don't know much about sockets (or better I don't remember much).
>> Does a waiting read (in the second task) block a write in the first
>> task?
>
> Usually not. Note that you must wait not for a socket read, but for a
> "variable-update" event from the middleware layer.

_Something_ has to wait for a socket read! If you're writing your own
'middleware' (lower layers, anyway) that will be you.

Windows is not wonderful for this sort of thing but I have not seen
problems of the sort you describe with a task blocked on the read
(input_t'Input) and other code (either another single task, or some
sort of mutex) for output_t'Output.

>>  - what other hints can you give me?
>
> Never ever use UPD, avoid TCP_NO_DELAY with TCP/IP. The first is
> unreliable for your purpose, the second quickly brings the network
> down.

Probably best to avoid these (I guess that UPD was a typo for UDP) at
the start, but sometimes they are the appropriate solution. Not often,
maybe.