Opening Sockets on localhost

[Dan Shafer]

Alex.....

I got it. IOW, opening a socket doesn't work unilaterally. The "server" 
has to have a listener on that port first. Right?

I'm going to figure out this server stuff one of these days.

Dan

On Mar 15, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Alex Tweedly wrote:

> Dan Shafer wrote:
>
>> If I open socket to "localhost" and look at the result, it's empty, 
>> which means the socket got created. If I subsequently use close 
>> socket "localhost", that works, too. If, before I close the socket I 
>> try to open it again, I get the expected error indicating the socket 
>> is already open. So far, so good.
>>
>> However, if I append a port to the open socket command, nothing 
>> happens. open socket to "localhost:8080" followed immediately by 
>> "cloe socket "localhost:8080" returns "socket is not open."
>>
>> OS X 10.3.8, Rev 2.5.1.
>>
>> Is this broken or am I misunderstanding something or...???
>
> Possibly neither.
>
> open socket "localhost"      is equivalent to    open socket 
> "localhost:80"
> the default port is 80, which is generally used for HTTP connections.  
> This should succeed if your machine is able (willing) to accept http 
> connections, and otherwise it should fail.  Sounds like it succeeds on 
> your machine.
>
> open socket "localhost:8080"    should fail, unless you have some 
> process on your machine accepting connections on port 8080 - fairly 
> unlikely, so I'd expect it to fail.
>
> -- 
> Alex Tweedly       http://www.tweedly.net
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>