- From: Michel Philip <mphilip@infovista.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:54:56 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-lib@w3.org
- Cc: "'Shigeyuki Fukushima'" <shige@sitc.toshiba.co.jp>
> Is this modification correct?
For me this is not correct.
My program does multiples requests.
(see the mget.c sample)
I don't want to exit the event loop
just because one of them is unreacheable.
> Or, do you have a nice idea for this problem?
I don't know if it is nice but here is how I do
"by request" timeouts:
...
HTRequest request = HTRequest_new();
HTRequest_setContext(request, myReq);
myReq->timer = HTTimer_new(NULL, timer_callback, (void*)myReq, tm, true,
false);
...
int timer_callback(HTTimer* timer, void * param, HTEventType type)
{
t_myReq *myReq = (t_myReq *)inst;
HTRequest request = myReq->request;
HTTimer_delete(timer);
myReq->timer = NULL;
// To kill the request use:
/*
HTNet *net = HTRequest_net(request);
HTNet_killPipe(net);
*/
}
-----Original Message-----
From: Shigeyuki Fukushima [mailto:shige@sitc.toshiba.co.jp]
Sent: vendredi 15 février 2002 02:32
To: www-lib@w3.org
Cc: shige@sitc.toshiba.co.jp
Subject: HTEventList_loop on Windows
Hello.
Now I'm using w3c-libwww-5.3.2 on x86/Windows platform.
I have found a fatal bug(?) in HTEventList_loop function.
When compiling Library/src/HTEvtLst.c with WWW_WIN_ASYNC definition.
`HTHost_setEventTimeout(60000);' operation has no effect for
main event loop.
When a program sent a http request for an unreachable URL,
it cannot escape main event loop parmanently, even if
HTHost_setEventTimeout() is called before in loop.
Then, I tried to modify HTEvtLst.c as follows (add):
PUBLIC int HTEventList_loop (HTRequest * theRequest)
{
#ifdef WWW_WIN_ASYNC
MSG msg;
int status;
ms_t timeout;
while (!HTEndLoop && GetMessage(&msg,0,0,0)) {
/* add FROM */
if ((status = HTTimer_next(&timeout)))
break;
/* add TO */
TranslateMessage(&msg);
DispatchMessage(&msg);
}
status = HTEndLoop;
/* Reset HTEndLoop in case we want to start again */
HTEndLoop = 0;
return (status == 1 ? HT_OK : HT_ERROR);
#else /* WWW_WIN_ASYNC */
:
}
Is this modification correct?
Or, do you have a nice idea for this problem?
Thanks.
--- shige
Shigeyuki Fukushima
shige@sitc.toshiba.co.jp
shige@FreeBSD.org
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 03:10:08 UTC