[hunchentoot-devel] Trouble with finish-output in process-connection

[Hans Hübner]

Hi Ilya,

thank you for the heads-up and sorry for the improper fix, which I
will be backing out.  I made the change after having discussed with
David Lichteblau, and I have wrongly got the impression that
FORCE-OUTPUT and FINISH-OUTPUT without any other keyword parameters
should be basically equivalent.  I have been pondering whether the
FINISH-OUTPUT, with waiting for the flush to have finished, is the
right thing.  What is really required at this point is making sure
that the data eventually arrives at the client, not neccessarily
waiting for that to have happened.

I am not quite sure what do do now.  I personally don't use SBCL so I
am not affected by the problem.  It seems that neither of the two
approaches that have been tried properly work for SBCL - FORCE-OUTPUT
potentially loses data, and FINISH-OUTPUT potentially hangs the
server.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Hans

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Ilya Perminov <iperminov at dwavesys.com> wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> I think changing FINISH-OUTPUT back to FORCE-OUTPUT is wrong. It
> reintroduces the bug I reported a couple of months ago:
> http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/tbnl-devel/2011-February/005411.html
>
> Using (FORCE-OUTPUT S) in conjunction with (CLOSE S :ABORT T) does not
> guarantee all buffered output is sent to the socket before the socket
> is closed. That is probably why replacing FINISH-OUTPUT with
> FORCE-OUTPUT "fixed" Andrey's problem: the new version simply discards
> data instead of writing it to the socket.
>
> Ilya
>
> _______________________________________________
> tbnl-devel site list
> tbnl-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
>