Socket Server... Why two?

What's the difference between a socket server done in this way:

accept() -> select() -> recv() --- in a blocking way ---

And a socket server done in this way?

accept() -> recv() --- in a blocking way ---

Both wait for data to be received before to unblock. But what's the
advantage and disavantage in the first and in second solution?

Thanks in advance

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> What's the difference between a socket server done in this way:
>
> accept() -> select() -> recv() --- in a blocking way ---
>
> And a socket server done in this way?
>
> accept() -> recv() --- in a blocking way ---
>
> Both wait for data to be received before to unblock. But what's the
> advantage and disavantage in the first and in second solution?

You are correct, there's little functional difference between the two. The
first example is what you would use if you put the socket into non-blocking
mode, this would allow you to handle other events in addition to receiving
packets.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> What's the difference between a socket server done in this way:
>
> accept() -> select() -> recv() --- in a blocking way ---
>
> And a socket server done in this way?
>
> accept() -> recv() --- in a blocking way ---
>
> Both wait for data to be received before to unblock. But what's the
> advantage and disavantage in the first and in second solution?

In the first case you could wait on more than one descriptor (sockets,
files) at the same time and be notified of any events including availability
of data, ready for write etc and hence used mostly in cases where you have
multiple connections. Also, you have a option of specifying the amount of
time to block.