GNU bug report logs - #22493
25.1.50; open-gnutls-stream doesn't respect :nowait, so the connections are synchronous

Previous Next

Full log

Message #26 received at 22493 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 22493 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22493: 25.1.50;
 open-gnutls-stream doesn't respect :nowait, so the connections are
 synchronous
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:59:49 +0200

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 01:40:51 +0100
> 
> I have now implemented this, but in a slightly different way.  I
> introduced a new process slot to say that we shouldn't be writing yet.
> 
> However, the Lisp part of the implementation is not very satisfactory.
> This is basically it:
> 
>   (let ((process (open-network-stream name buffer host service
>                                       :nowait nowait)))
>     (if nowait
>         (progn
>           (gnutls-mark-process process t)
>           (set-process-sentinel process 'gnutls-async-sentinel)
>           process)
>       (gnutls-negotiate :process (open-network-stream name buffer host service)
>                         :type 'gnutls-x509pki
>                         :hostname host))))
> ...
> 
> (defun gnutls-async-sentinel (process change)
>   (when (string-match "open" change)
>     (gnutls-negotiate :process process
>                       :type 'gnutls-x509pki
>                       :hostname (car (process-contact process)))
>     (gnutls-mark-process process nil)))
> 
> 
> The problem here is that this library is now putting a sentinel on the
> process.  But any callers that want an asynchronous connection will also
> be setting sentinels on the same process, which means that the
> connection sentinel will be overwritten.
> 
> I've kludged this together in one of the callers (in url-http.el), but
> that's too ugly to live.  (It checks for a sentinel and daisy-chains the
> previous one.  Eek.)
> 
> So that has to be rewritten.  But I'm not sure how...  We, like, have
> several layers of possible sentinels here, and...  uhm...

Ahmm... maybe it would have been better to wait until the discussion
completes and reaches some solid conclusions?

> Ideas?

Like I wrote elsewhere, I don't understand what this gives us.  The
sentinel runs in the main thread, so you still wait for the GnuTLS
handshake to complete.  Right?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.