Re: Asynchronous DNS

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Alain Schneble <address@hidden> writes:

> Well, back to square /two/ I would say, depending on how you arrange the
> squares ;) Because application code would just loose the
> async-DNS-resolve benefits.  As most of the functions such as
> `set-process-coding-system', that would need to block, require only an
> initialized socked (and not really a connected one).  And if the author
> of the code doesn't care, he just accepted that he wrote semi-optimized
> async code -- but code that actually works.  This doesn't sound wrong to
> me. 

Yeah, that's true.  It's less fragile.  But I wonder whether being that
application friendly can sometimes be a disservice?  If you're an
application writer, trying to be as async as possible (that is, after
all, why you're using :nowait 'immediate), would you prefer that random
functions block without telling you, or that they error out?

Hm...  I don't know what I'd prefer, really...  *ponder*

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no