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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,31c8a4a333170c23
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Simon Wright <simon@pogner.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Tasking Models
Date: 2000/04/20
Message-ID: <x7vpurkd1aa.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614212980
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
References: <38FD5045.A42B4406@quadruscorp.com>
 <slrn8fr4sn.1se.gisle@apal.ii.uib.no> <38FDDF83.26B5DC76@quadruscorp.com>
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 956382000 nnrp-11:10446 NO-IDENT
 pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
Organization: At Home
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
Date: 2000-04-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Marin D. Condic" <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> writes:

> I've been told that TCP/IP would sort it out - no interleaving of
> message fragments at least - which would mean that two tasks writing to
> the same socket would be O.K. But getting told that by someone is not
> the same as reading it in a document written by the good folks who
> brought you the software. I lose sleep at night over stuff like this.
> :-)

That sounds like a design I would lose sleep over .. I guess if you
always write complete messages you would probably be OK, but I've
usually used the "write the message descriptor, then write the
message" style. Still, you really need to see inside that networking
stack.