Patrick Monnerat wrote:

> Right: the NOOP command must be supported. But the handling of the
control
> connection while a data transfer is active is not well defined: this
is
> the real potential problem. Light servers have the "permission" to
ignore
> the control connection while transfering data. In that case, the
attention
> mechanism defined in RFC959 seems a bit hazardous...

In addition, sending a NOOP to the server implies we should expect a 200
response that is not handled at all by the current patch. When a data
transfer is active, this response may come before or worse: even AFTER
the data transfer completion response, because the server may have
started to send the later while we are sending the NOOP :-(
As a consequence, the handling of this asynchronous command/response
exchange does not seem as simple as it first looks.
Received on 2007-11-05