On 2004-08-13 at 21:53BST Glynn Clements wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
Yes, I'm sure that's the reason for it. Proposals for a replacement are welcome...
What would be the intended purpose of a replacement?
If you want a simpler interface for writing servers, it would probably look something like:
doServer :: PortID -> (Handle -> IO ()) -> IO () doServer port handler = do s <- listenOn port let doIt = do ~(s', _) <- Socket.accept s h <- socketToHandle s' ReadWriteMode forkIO $ handler h >> hClose h
Shouldn't there be sCloses in here?
sequence_ $ repeat doIt
Otherwise that looks like a much handier thing, though there /might/ be call for something without the forkIO.
Ultimately, you either need to create a separate thread/process per connection, or manually service multiple connections (select/poll). A server which processed connections sequentially wouldn't be of much practical use
Well, for the to application I had in mind when I started this thread, sequential processing of connexions is exactly what's wanted. Whoever makes the first connexion gets control and keeps it until they drop the connexion, then the next client takes over.
(and a one-shot server probably wouldn't even be of use for "toy" programs).
Indeed not! -- Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk