[Live-devel] BasicTaskScheduler is not handling err 10038

[Ken Seo]

Hi Ross,

I apologize if my post sounded like complaining, but I didn't intend
to do that.., I actually very much appreciate sharing your code.
My name is Ken Seo, working at Research In Motion Canada, the reason I
used my gmail is because I'm personally doing some research on
RTP/RTSP not as a part of my work. (at least not yet) And this is my
second post to your mailing list, but my first one was not about
BasicTaskScheduler,

Windows error 10038 is "WSAENOTSOCK", and typically happens when an
application is trying to do some socket operation on non-socket or the
socket that has already been closed, (at least that's my
understanding..)
I was getting this error, from the line in the BasicTaskScheduler.cpp
(build 2008-04-03)

     int err = WSAGetLastError();  // err = 10038

And it only happens when RTSP server tries to delete clientSession due
to livenessTimeout, (it doesn't happen when session gets closed by
TEARDOWN request). And like you said, it could very well be my
configuration or a windows bug.
And I was wondering if anyone else had some similar experience, if so,
what could be the best way to deal with it..
I will look into it myself, and if I believe that I need to notify you
(since you are "still waiting to learn what is wrong"), I will do,

Best Regards,

K.S.



On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Ross Finlayson <finlayson at live555.com> wrote:
> >I'm developing a RTSP server based on live555 and I've noticed that
>  >BasicTaskScheduler is not handling the windows error 10038,
>
>  So what does 'windows error' 10038 mean, which function call is
>  returning it ("select()"?), and why?
>
>  This is the second time in the past week that we've had someone (each
>  time with a "@gmail.com" email address, I might add) complaining
>  about the "BasicTaskScheduler" code doing something strange on some
>  version of Windows.  I am still waiting to learn what - if anything -
>  is wrong with *our code*.
>
>  If, instead, the problem is that our code is correct, but that some
>  versions of Windows are buggy (e.g., not implementing "select()"
>  properly), then people should instead be trying to get Microsoft to
>  fix their bug (if it's not already fixed in the latest version of XP,
>  Vista, or whatever).
>
>  Having said that, though, I *am* open to adding a Windows-specific
>  work-around to the code, as long as it's well-understood (i.e., not
>  just a 'stab in the dark'), not excessively ugly, and doesn't affect
>  the performance of the code on other (non-buggy) OSs.
>  --
>
>  Ross Finlayson
>  Live Networks, Inc.
>  http://www.live555.com/
>  _______________________________________________
>  live-devel mailing list
>  live-devel at lists.live555.com
>  http://lists.live555.com/mailman/listinfo/live-devel
>