Re: [Chicken-users] Is there a way to get tcp-accept to time-out?

[Ed Watkeys]

On Feb 25, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Julian Morrison wrote:

> > An alternative is to write a simple C procedure that can grab the fd 
> > from the socket, so it can be passed to file-select.
>
> Looks like (file-select) is already a wrapper, but it appears to be a 
> low-level one, ie: all the disadvantages of using C directly. And 
> (port->fileno) will grab FDs.

So my problem is solved, except that it isn't solved at all.

> > I'd rather not have to deal with select's blocking and its 
> > interaction with Chicken's threads at the C level.
>
> The whole point of using select is to avoid threading. Still, IIRC 
> chicken's threads are cooperative, so just call (file-select) with 
> very small timeouts, and yield the thread. You can count the small 
> timeouts to do a large timeout, or use (current-milliseconds).

I'm going to investigate using a signal handler to deal with my 
problem. After all, I don't care about returning from TCP-ACCEPT every 
x seconds. The point of timing-out is to check if someone has requested 
a server shutdown. I just need to make sure the appropriate 
(TCP-ACCEPT-ing) thread is interrupted by the signal.

I'm not that enamored with threads. I'd prefer to write either a pure 
select-based, event-driven server or a traditional fork-based server. 
Threads provide the implementation ease of the forking model with the 
shared state of the select-based model. I don't think I'm thinking 
Scheme-ly enough: with continuations, writing a select-based server 
would be a relative breeze. Time to think...

Ed