Re: write vs send (& read vs recv)

From: David Schwartz (davids_at_webmaster.com)
Date: 11/26/03

  • Next message: JustSomeGuy: "Re: write vs send (& read vs recv)" 
    Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:55:45 -0800

    "Nimmi Srivastav" <nimmi_srivastav@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:8b0c42d.0311251939.dbb9cf0@posting.google.com...

    > I have a very simple socket program in which a TCP client sends a
    > message to a TCP server. For some reason, when I use the write()
    > library call, the server does not receive any message/data from the
    > client. However, if I substitute the write() library call with the
    > send() library call, everything works fine. I haven't tried the
    > return path yet, but I suspect that I'll have to use recv() rather
    > than read().

        It's hard to imagine why this would be. Can you paste the code with
    'write' and with 'send'? Maybe you just make a silly mistake in one and not
    in the other. It's also possible some preloaded library does something
    unusual with one and not with the other. The 'write' function should be
    equivalent to 'send' with a flags value of zero.

    > Does anyone want to guess what might be happening? What's the
    > difference between write and send (& read and recv) for TCP sockets?

        There are none on any UNIX that I know of, except that you can specify
    options with 'recv' or 'send' that you can't with 'read' or 'recv'. Perhaps
    you're using a very unusual operating system where sockets are not
    interchangeable with file descriptors? Windows 98 is like this, but I don't
    know of any BSD UNIXes that are at all like that.

        DS

  • Next message: JustSomeGuy: "Re: write vs send (& read vs recv)"