[erlang-questions] : : : : : : sctp_peeloff() support in OTP

Raimo Niskanen <>
Thu Apr 23 16:49:38 CEST 2009


Error on my side! I had a broken regexp in .muttrc that nobody
noticed before. And I also got some help from colleagues that
as we say in swedish likes to "write it on my nose" (rub it in).

It should be fixed now. Thank you for pointing it out!



On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 04:09:49PM +0200, Hynek Vychodil wrote:
> I can see in your mail headers:
> 
> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:40:07 +0200
> From: Raimo Niskanen <
> <raimo%>>
> 
> To: Hynek Vychodil <>, 
> 
> Cc: Valentin Micic <>
> Subject: Re: : [erlang-questions] : : : : : sctp_peeloff() support in OTP
> Message-ID: <>
> 
> 
> Mail-Followup-To: Hynek Vychodil <>,
> 	,
> 
> 	Valentin Micic <>
> 
> References: <>
> <>
> <>
> <>
> 
> 
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> In-Reply-To: <>
> 
> 
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Apr 2009 12:40:09.0355 (UTC)
> FILETIME=[A33685B0:01C9C410]
> X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
> 
> W hen I try press Reply button it start reply to "Hynek Vychodil <
> >, , Valentin Micic <
> >" that is exactly content of Mail-Followup-To. I have
> observed that thread is broken each time by your mail. It seems that issue
> should be in your mailer but I can be wrong. There are two reasons: reply

I see...

> works wrong, threads are broken. Another possibility that gmail is broken
> seems less probably form me. Example headers which works fine follows:
> 
> Message-Id: <>
> From: "Valentin Micic" <>
> 
> To: "'Raimo Niskanen'" <
> <raimo%>>,
>         <>
> 
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:00:25 +0200
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
> In-Reply-To: <>
> 
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
> Thread-Index: AcnDJpmaVTDmZaUrSd+2jrLViPSL6QAOVgnQ
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] : :  :  sctp_peeloff() support in OTP
> X-BeenThere: 
> 
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
> 
> In-Reply-To: <>
> References: <>
> 
> 	<>
> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:52:52 +0700
> Message-ID: <>
> 
> From: Maxim Treskin <>
> To: "" <>
> 
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] : : : sctp_peeloff() support in OTP
> X-BeenThere: 
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
> 
> But it seems that gmail ignores all except Subject to detect threads as
> mentioned Robert Raschke.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Raimo Niskanen <
> <raimo%>
> > wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 02:08:45PM +0200, Hynek Vychodil wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > can you please use some mail client that supports threading? It's fourth
> > > thread about "sctp_peeloff() support in OTP".
> > > Best regards
> > >    Hynek
> >
> > Well, at least my mail client supports its own mail threading;
> > I have only two threads. One singelton message is Valentin Mimic's
> > Message-Id: <>
> > that it did not manage to sort out. The others are fine.
> >
> > I use User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i. It has been around very long
> > and works finefor me. As you see it supplies both In-Reply-To:
> > and References: headers, and gmail as you use is mostly
> > very good at tracking threads.
> >
> > It is strange that you are experiencing problems.
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Raimo Niskanen <
> > > <raimo%>
> > <raimo%<raimo%>
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:37:21PM +0200, Valentin Micic wrote:
> > > > > > In what way is it useful to dispatch messages from the
> > > > > > driver level onto a PID dedicated for a streams if
> > > > > > you do not get flow control per stream?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure if it would be useful, and not sure if that is what I've
> > been
> > > > > trying to say/ask. Forget about my "stream processor" (*) suggestion,
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > irrelevant, and I prefer the implementation at the driver level
> > anyway.
> > > > > I was only wondering if there is a way to achieve a stream separation
> > > > > without utilizing additional file descriptors. I think yes, but the
> > > > driver
> > > > > may end up too complex and difficult to maintain, etc.
> > > >
> > > > If it is useful it may be worth the complexification...
> > > >
> > > > But I am now under the assumption that a stream separation
> > > > that does not utilize additional file descriptors
> > > > (as you ask for) can not do per-stream flow control
> > > > (with respect to remote peer) and therefore is not useful.
> > > >
> > > > Prove me wrong and I might do it.
> > > >
> > > > > I would be very grateful if you implement this feature whichever way
> > you
> > > > > find fit :-).
> > > > >
> > > > > BR
> > > > >
> > > > > V.
> > > > >
> > > > > (*) I did say that stream processor can do queuing, though. This
> > would
> > > > imply
> > > > > some basic flow control vis-à-vis target PID, but not necessarily
> > with
> > > > > respect to remote peer. :-)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > erlang-questions mailing list
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --Hynek (Pichi) Vychodil
> > >
> > > Analyze your data in minutes. Share your insights instantly. Thrill your
> > > boss.  Be a data hero!
> > > Try Good Data now for free: www.gooddata.com
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > erlang-questions mailing list
> > > 
> > > http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >
> > --
> >
> > / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --Hynek (Pichi) Vychodil
> 
> Analyze your data in minutes. Share your insights instantly. Thrill your
> boss.  Be a data hero!
> Try Good Data now for free: www.gooddata.com

-- 

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list