On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 06:04:29PM +0200, Itamar Shtull-Trauring wrote:
Background: Ivo pointed out there's no way to differentiate between "no such hostname" and "connection refused". For that matter, connectionFailed has nothing to do with the protocol - why are we doing a callback on the protocol at all? It shouldn't be created if no connection was made.
Proposal: reactor.clientTCP accepts a protocol factory instead of a protocol, and only makes a protocol instance if connection was made. Additionally, it accepts an additional argument, failureCallback, which will get called with a status code (CONNECTION_REFUSED, NO_SUCH_HOSTNAME) or something when the connection fails. Protocol.connectionFailed goes bye-bye.
Comments?
Some people don't see a point in providing these errors, so I'll illustrate the issue with some more examples: when binding to a local port, I'd like to know if it fails due to the port already being in use (EBUSY), permission denied (i.e. a port < 1024 when not being root), or some system failure that may be difficult to track down without an appropriate error (i.e. running out of fd's) I agree with itamar that if these errors aren't handled in the protocol implementation, failure to connect shouldn't be there either. Ivo -- Drs. I.R. van der Wijk -=- Brouwersgracht 132 Amaze Internet Services V.O.F. 1013 HA Amsterdam, NL -=- T +31-20-4688336 F +31-20-4688337 Linux/Web/Zope/SQL/MMBase W http://www.amaze.nl E info@amaze.nl Network Solutions W http://vanderwijk.info E ivo@amaze.nl Consultancy PGP http://vanderwijk.info/pgp -=-