Re: [Live-devel] bug in BasicTaskScheduler.cpp ?

2008-11-11 Thread Ross Finlayson
That doesn't matter, because *TCP* packets will still be arriving (on the TCP socket), and will be handled. This is a Red Herring. No, that TCP socket has been closed - and the corresponding socket ID refers occasionally to an UDP socket within the same call to SingleStep - if it was a red herr

Re: [Live-devel] Open RTSP FAQ

2008-11-11 Thread Guy Bonneau
Yes you're right! I missed the minus before the 10 before the second example and got confused! Thanks _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Finlayson Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 9:24 PM To: LIVE555 Streaming Media - development & use Subject: Re:

Re: [Live-devel] bug in BasicTaskScheduler.cpp ?

2008-11-11 Thread Sigismondo Boschi
Ross Finlayson wrote: That doesn't matter, because *TCP* packets will still be arriving (on the TCP socket), and will be handled. This is a Red Herring. No, that TCP socket has been closed - and the corresponding socket ID refers occasionally to an UDP socket within the same call to SingleStep

Re: [Live-devel] bug in BasicTaskScheduler.cpp ?

2008-11-11 Thread Ross Finlayson
2. What happen is very tricky, it has taken some time to understand why it was getting stuck after some BYEs. Even if RTP-over-TCP is used, the UDP handlers are registered. They never get called because the select in SingleStep never "activate" them, since there are no UDP packets incoming. T

Re: [Live-devel] bug in BasicTaskScheduler.cpp ?

2008-11-11 Thread Sigismondo Boschi
Ross Finlayson wrote: To my knowledge, there is nothing wrong with the current "BasicTaskScheduler" code. Did you upgrade to the very most recent version (2008.11.04) of the code? That version fixed a bug similar to what you seem to be seeing: sockets were sometimes not being closed (and the