Re: copy constructor for sockets

[Mark Lorenzen <mark.lorenzen@ofir.dk>]

"Andrew Carroll" <andrew@carroll-tech.net> writes:

> Okay,
>
> I have written a small test server.  All it does is Accept() connections
> and Get_line() and then a final Get().  It is just an experiment but I
> want the server now to create a task (with a socket as one of it's
> members) and initialize that socket.  There are two types of tasks
> however and the distinction between which task to create comes from the
> header information in the get_line() right after the Accept().  If it is
> a GET header then I would create task type A, if it is a POST then I
> would create task type B.
>
> So, the server must accept the socket and do an initial read to get the
> header information (GET or POST) to know which type of task to create.
> Then I want to initialize the socket that is in the task type to be the
> same as the socket in the server that was just accepted.  It would
> probably need to be a "deep copy" of the socket because the server will
> need to release the socket and the task will need to keep the socket.
> By release I mean close() and by keep I mean use for communication.
>
> The other option is to use an access yet I think it could be done
> without it.
>
> Doesn't the ":=" operator to a "deep copy"?
>
> Andrew

This design is enough if you have a small number of connections. If
you want to design a high performance server application with
thousands of connections, you must reduce the use of tasks as the
system will drown in conext switches otherwise.


Some links with good info:

http://pl.atyp.us/content/tech/servers.html

http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html

But remember, if you are only learning to design a server application,
then you should not bother about performance with thousands of
connections yet. It is better to learn UNIX socket communication
first.

- Mark Lorenzen