problem with sockets under win32; premature connection termination

[Regan Heath]

Downs Wrote:
> Yes, um, I kind of solved it for miniserv in the meantime ^^ But my solution is specific to HTTP.
> 
> The solution is simply to do another attempt at receiving data right before shutting down. ^^
> Now, there are two possibilities.
> a) The client transmits the header, then shuts down the connection (SocketShutdown.SEND).
>   In this case, the server-side recv call will return zero - connection closed.
>   BUT, strangely, it will also block until all the missing data is sent.
> b) The client transmits the header, then keeps the connection open (to send another header?)
>   In this case, we simply re-enqueue the socket and get persistent connections practically for free :D
> 
> The respective miniserv code looks like thus:
> 
>  >     try {
>  >       push; /// if this succeeds, we have a persistant connection on our hands
>  >       scope(success) first(this, (BufferingLayer buf) { buf.push_back(recv); logln("Re-enqueue!"); reenq(buf); });
>  >     } catch (Exception e) close; /// nope; the client already shutdown his SEND. Ah well. Terminate.
> 
> Push basically asks the lowest member of the filter-chain (the socket back-end) to "push"
> received data to the next higher element. It's basically a receive call.
> 
> Now, if there was a problem in-between, my socket back-end code will throw an exception (after the blocking recv returns).
> In this case, we simply close the socket and are done with it. Otherwise, we add the additional data we received
> to the front of our incoming buffer and re-enqueue the socket.
> 
> Easy, huh? ^^ I'm not sure how well this method translates to other protocols though, mainly because I don't completely
> understand why it works myself :p

Well, I'm glad you're situation is resolved but I'm still puzzled as to what I am/was doing wrong.  Maybe I'll take another look at it now, with fresh eyes, to figure out where I am going wrong.

Regan Heath