sockets

[Kenneth Brody]

On 5/15/2012 9:45 PM, Ed Hilovsky wrote:
> I asked for DAYS to send be the documentation about sockets. NOTHING....

I don't know who you asked, but the first message I see from you to 
fpsupport was late yesterday afternoon (subject "Version 5.7"), with the 
simple question:

> What functions are available for sockets.

This morning, Bill asked me to answer it, which I did at 10:42, telling you 
about the new 5.7 socket functions -- BIND2() and CONNECT2().  (Since the 
subject of your e-mail was "Version 5.7", and the above sentence was your 
question in its entirety, I answered under the assumption that you were 
asking about the new 5.7 socket functions.)

> Prior to my purchase I directly asked if the sockets could be reused and I
> was told that when the socket was shut down it was available it could be
> reused. Please see  below:

To me, a question about "reusing" sockets only makes sense in a few cases.

1 - The system imposes a limit on the number of sockets that can be open at 
a time.  Closing a socket means that one more socket out of that pool is now 
available for "reuse".

2 - Binding a socket to a given port prevents any other sockets from binding 
to that same port.  Closing the socket allows that port to be "reused" by 
binding another socket to it.

3 - You used the socket to connect to a server.  The transaction has 
finished, and you want to "reuse" the socket to connect to another (or 
possibly the same) server.  By closing the socket, you can now create a new 
socket and "reuse" the variable holding the old socket handle to now hold 
the new handle.

I probably would have replied something along the lines of those "answers", 
and asked "if you mean something else by 'reusing' a socket, you need to be 
more specific in what you are asking".

(Actually, I probably would have just assumed #3, since that's the only 
thing in my mind that could be considered "reusing" a socket.)

> NEVER, was it stated that the filepro process controlled this.

Of course filePro is in charge of whether or not a filePro process is 
allowed to access the socket functions, just as it is in charge of whether 
another instance of *clerk is allowed to run.

> It was stated
> that when the socket was shut down it was available for someone else. In
> fact the term filepro was never mentioned. So why would I even think that ?
> Bottom line, everyone else in the world can control sockets with a
> socketclose()  Just because fp can't don't make it my issue.

You keep bringing up the assertion that filePro is somehow "unable" to 
"control" sockets, which is patently untrue.

Again, you seem to think that the license is the number of sockets that you 
can open in filePro.

It is not.

The license is the number of concurrent filePro processes that are allowed 
to access the socket functions.  The number of sockets that any given 
process uses is irrelevant.  Whether your particular program uses 1 socket 
of 50, it is still a single license use.

> I've asked
> fpsupport and sales for days and have never gotten a response. (See below)

Again, the first message I see from you to fpsupport was yesterday afternoon 
at 5:14PM.

[...]

-- 
Kenneth Brody