Re: Lua and networking - possibly basic question

[David Burgess <dburgess@...>]

Yes, I would agree with Adrian. LuaSocket is rather well tested (unless you
want to do it again). It is also quick enough for most needs. And yes basic
LuaSocket is light.

David B.

On 10/27/05, Adrian Sietsma <adrian_groups@sietsma.com> wrote:
> Steve Kemp wrote:
> >   I've been embedding Lua 5.0 into a lot of local applications
> >  recently and find it very nice to work with.
> >
> >   For some software I'm working with I'm looking to add basic
> >  networking facilities, similar to the primitives people
> >  are used to :
> >
> >       connect
> >       read
> >       write
> >
> >   (I have no need for the bind() or accept() primitives.)
> >
> ...
> >
> >   How do other people approach this problem?  (In composing this
> >  mail I did a few searchs and see the existance of LuaSocket - this
> >  might help me, if I can embed it within my code.  Too soon to tell,
> >  but my natural reaction is to think that is overkill ...)
> >
>
> use LuaSocket. You probably won't need http, ftp etc; but why re-invent the
> wheel ? (you can always leave out the unused bits).
>
> even if you are driven to roll your own socket implementation, you should
> still read the luasocket c source to see how Diego did it.
>
> Adrian
> (i have a co-routine threaded http proxy built on LuaSocket, and it is 100%
> reliable for my usage case).
>
>
>