[lwip-users] Re: [lwip] tcp flushing

[Tim Newsham]

> I think it should just be documented so people can optimize for either
> latency or throughput. It can even change inside the same code. For example
> a telnet server should be low latency, while ftp transfers should be high
> throughput.
> I don't vote for the socket interface, only the raw interface (I think this
> is one of the reasons it's called raw).

I agree with the documentation bit, but I disagree that the raw interface
should not support automatic flushing.  I think its a bug that a tcp_write
would NEVER get flushed without implicitely calling tcp_output or having
an external event occur.  Leaving this behavior in tract is gonna bite
someone else at some point.  Should be fairly easy to have something in
slowtmr call tcp_output on any pcb's that havent been flushed in a while,
no?

> Florian

Tim N.

[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]