Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!THINK.COM!barmar
From: barmar@THINK.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Why does X not use SO_KEEPALIVE?
Message-ID: <19890524213053.4.BARMAR@OCCAM.THINK.COM>
Date: 24 May 89 21:30:00 GMT
References: <8905242006.AA01459@expire.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17


    Date: Wed, 24 May 89 16:06:03 -0400
    From: rws@expo.lcs.mit.edu

	This implies that there needs to
	be an option to the X stream-creation routine to specify this.

    At present, there appears to be enough contention about use of keepalives
    that I would prefer to "ignore" them at the Xlib level entirely.  Clients
    that wish to (ab)use SO_KEEPALIVE and other OS "features" can use the
    XConnectionNumber() directly.

Well, I'd prefer a more portable mechanism.  An Xlib-based keepalive
interface could turn a timeout into an error event, so the check would
fit naturally into the application's event loop.

                                                barmar